1. Four areas of research

Research within quantum humanities is held together by a bracket that asks “how things are done differently” and subsequently “how things are viewed differently” as well as “how these activities are institutionally arranged differently”^{Footnote 38} while looking at day-to-day scientific practice (and “patterns of [other] practices”), institutional “regimes and styles” such as the organisation of new institutional structures, routine selection or the development of rules, as well as the “configurations of valued signs and symbols” regarding the second wave of quantum innovation.^{Footnote 39} In the short term, and especially given the new emergence of technology in its early developmental stages, quantum humanities also has an important role to play in examining the choices that could set a course for later developments.^{Footnote 40} Therefore, to be able to analyse these choices and their consequences we must look at technology as a process following the Greek concept of “techne” – doing something – that describes action as a matter, subdivided into three areas: “Firstly, the using handling of the technical objectivations (work, consumption, use, and utilisation), – secondly, the generating handling (production, construction, invention, discovery) and – third, the activities of the technical object itself (operation, mechanical processes, automatisms).”^{Footnote 41}

We will take up the process orientation, which lies in the ancient Greek concept, to classify our four areas of research. As we go forward, “quantum humanities” will refer to the following four distinct areas (Fig. 1): (1) the application of quantum algorithms in the humanities or in sciences that bring about knowledge that will (2) allow the humanities to reflect on its use at a theoretical and methodological level, which will also include (3) the evaluation of the societal, cultural and social implications and (4) give insights into the development of research, education or national innovation systems for quantum computers.^{Footnote 42}

Figure 1.

Core elements of quantum humanities.

Source: Astrid Bötticher. Design: Gerhard Kiegerl.

1. Applications

The most straightforward of all of our subfields to define is the applications – or the use of quantum computing to explore humanities questions and produce works in the humanities. In this subfield we consider the following questions: what kind of visions for applications can we develop for the humanities? How can we use quantum computing to sustainably enable research in the humanities? What applications do exist and how are they affected by other sciences?

Utilising these questions as a starting point, we can already report on first experiences in the use of quantum computing for humanities-orientated research questions. Many researchers have already started experimenting and even producing work in a quantum-native manner in the humanities. Four particular fields – music, visual arts, language processing and machine learning – have already positioned their research at the vanguard of this subfield, taking advantage of the intersection of quantum technologies and the production of humanities-orientated research and artistic works. The discussion of the applications here is not meant to be exhaustive but just to give a cursory view of the ways in which quantum computing is being used in humanities-related studies.

One of the application fields with an increasing number of international conferences and works is that of quantum music. Quantum music has different iterations, but most try to use quantum phenomena to explore superposition and other concepts within musical theory. Several works in this area are easily identifiable, such as Putz and Svozil, who quantised a piano.^{Footnote 44} When a classical music audience hears the quantum musical state, individual listeners may perceive the sound very differently. That is, they will hear only one of the different tones played by the quantised piano. To be clear, truly quantum mechanical music will never produce a unified listening experience – it is quite possible for one part of the audience to hear different manifestations of the quantum musical composition consisting of different sequences of tones, offering possibilities for aleatoricism in music.

In addition, the visual arts are exploring the quantum field. Even though quantum humanities have only just begun defining themselves over the last four years, quantum-inspired or quantum-based art has been represented in art galleries since the 2010s. Examples can be seen by the project by Heller, Swist and Thomas,^{Footnote 45} which utilised quantum phenomena graphically to model key works of art and expression. Others in this field have embarked on far-reaching projects such Quantum Cinema (2010–2013), which continues to be expanded on by current scientists to explore the capabilities of illustrating quantum phenomena and focusing on the visualisation of three-dimensional animated geometry.^{Footnote 46}

Quantum computation presents a new opportunity for those engaged in natural language processing and machine learning. In the case of natural language processing, projects are underway such as that of Coecke et al, who have designed ways to “speak” in question-and-answering formats in a quantum-native manner with existing quantum computers.^{Footnote 47} In the case of machine learning, projects such as MUSE (mentioned previously) have already shown the utility of incorporating quantum machine learning while also setting a precedent for when quantum computers surpass the NISQ phase and their machine learning capabilities surpass those of our more error-prone digital systems. It is important to note here that learning materials and industry requirements have already started pushing for the use of quantum approaches to machine learning due to the current state of the artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning fields, which may lead to even more combined applications.

In addition to just strictly humanities work, quantum computing has started affecting theoretical and practical concerns in the field of law, as argued by Atik and Jeutner. For example, the phenomenon of superposition in quantum computing makes it possible to model situations in which certain behaviours are both legal and illegal. This could be helpful in resolving normative conflicts in which different legal norms overlap. Quantum computing could also improve the modelling of legal phenomena such as rule-exception dynamics and fuzzy legal categorisations. Specific application areas for quantum computing in law include optimising legal decision-making processes, reducing the burden of proof and improving machine learning in the legal context. The authors argue that two conceptual steps are necessary to explore the legal applicability of quantum computing. First, the problem areas in which quantum computing enjoys “quantum dominance” need to be identified. Second, these identified areas need to be considered in a legal context. However, they emphasise that the legal significance of quantum computing will be limited to a specific subset of legal issues, and that many issues cannot be adequately addressed by (quantum) computational law.^{Footnote 48}

In this brief overview, we can observe that the applications of quantum computing are steadily developing those fields in the humanities, and this development has been ongoing for at least a decade in some areas, setting the foundations for more pervasive transformations among humanities applications in the coming years. In addition, by joining them together under the umbrella subfield of “applications within quantum humanities”, future academics will be able to draw on the experiences and explorations of their colleagues to define and develop said field without remaining in their topic-based bubble. This joining also presents an opportunity for humanities researchers to become more informed regarding the impacts of providing their information in a quantum-native manner, increasing their interactions with the other areas of the quantum humanities here specified.

2. Implications

The identification of societal implications is an important goal of knowledge because achieving this enables us to advise on the transformational issues that the world is facing. According to Rammert,^{Footnote 49} technology is a natural part of our social structure – because, without it, entire branches of society could not be understood at all. Technologies formed industries and economic sectors, as well as technical infrastructure systems, which together formed the technostructure of society, as Mayntz explains.^{Footnote 50}

Quantum humanities have their practical focus on social ordering. Kornwachs and Stephan^{Footnote 51} explain that every device has an organisational shell. This consists of an action system and a factual system. Therefore, technology acts as a kind of transmitter for people and for society at the macro-, meso- and micro-levels. Quantum technology in general is negotiated in multiple arenas of our societies, and it might provoke new markets, new jobs, new work, new institutions, new art, new philosophies, institutional change, new kinds of policy and regulation and transformational changes within the culture.^{Footnote 52} Managing complexity points to the fact that we are on the verge of reconciling these various perspectives as a larger whole because the individual institutions, facilities, habits and day-to-day practices are akin to (sometimes mismatched) gears that mesh together.^{Footnote 53} The focus is on the pitfalls of transformation and the benefits of advancement and transitional activities in society, testifying to the transformative power of quantum computing or providing evidence to the contrary. Pitfalls include, for instance, insufficient regulation,^{Footnote 54} a lack of international coordination regimes,^{Footnote 55} insufficient democratisation in science, reinforcing or creating a bias against women or other minorities in technology use and discourse^{Footnote 56} and a lack of discussion of sensible economic investments^{Footnote 57} and the potential use of such technology.^{Footnote 58} The relationship between technology and society is as multifaceted as how technology is perceived, integrated and shaped in different societal contexts. Technology has the inherent ability to exert influence and impact on various aspects of society,^{Footnote 59} thereby shaping and engaging the fields of the humanities. Individuals and communities perceive technologies within specific social, cultural and historical contexts as these technologies are integrated into different areas of human activity such as education, work, health, communication and leisure. Technology affects power dynamics, social inequalities, ethical considerations and the distribution of resources, and these factors influence the integration of technology into human action. By examining contextual elements such as organisational structures, legal frameworks, technological infrastructures and cultural practices, we can understand how these factors shape the adoption, use and impacts of quantum computing. The technological shell provides a framework for considering these wider implications of this technology for the humanities. Through the technological shell, we perceive the pervasiveness of the possible societal changes. This framework recognises the interconnectedness and interdependence of different aspects within the humanities.

Figure 2 presents the technological shell.^{Footnote 60} It provides an overview and locates the multiform processes and networks that organise these processes, be they military advantages or aspects in the fight against global warming or concrete processes and new infrastructures (eg the Quantum Internet Alliance) for fundamentally new metohds of communications based in orbit or new standards.^{Footnote 61}

Figure 2.

The technological shell, using the example of a PC.

Source: Intelligente Objekte. Acatech diskutiert. German Academy of Science and Engineering. Adapted by Astrid Bötticher.

However, the technological shell model fails to critically reflect on the parties or societal inquiries that are included and left out of the technology’s design. A recent collaboration between Stanford University and the University of Oxford introduced the Quantum-ELSPI research framework, which analyses quantum technologies in the responsible research and innovation framing.^{Footnote 62} The ELSPI meta-paradigm focuses on predefined categories of change such as the ethical, legal, social and political implications of quantum technology. It shares some of the insights of the technological shell in that it recognises the interconnectedness and interdependence of the various dimensions. Indeed, researchers and policymakers currently question the ethical implications of accelerating rates of discovery, the legal opportunities and challenges posed by a technology that promises to render current encryption obsolete, the limitations of building workforces upon already-stratified societies^{Footnote 63} and the challenges that the technology poses in the international arena.^{Footnote 64} Contrary to the technological shell’s descriptive approach, Quantum-ELSPI insists that quantum technologies are indeed revolutionary, an assertion that justifies inquiring about the socio-political impacts of such technology.

Quantum-ELSPI reflects on several largely missing dimensions of innovation and acknowledges the interdependence between societal and technical questions. It also tacitly re-institutionalises the acceptance that there is indeed a “good” quantum-enabled global future. Quantum-ELSPI claims that such a future is deliverable through the study of or reflection on the implications of the technology while leaving unproblematised normative claims that quantum technology will revolutionise the world and benefit society. We argue that Quantum-ELSPI publicly performs a Western socio-technical imaginary – a collectively held and institutionally stabilised notion of a “good” science-enabled future.^{Footnote 65}

In democratic Western societies, knowledge orders are seen as authoritative, inevitable and seemingly factual, while societal orders are seen as subjective, changeable and legitimised through claims of objectivity. In other words, science stabilises society by the constant leveraging of expertise as a fundamental part of civic life.^{Footnote 66} Similarly, Quantum-ELSPI claims that quantum technologies stand to deliver societally impactful solutions. It also claims that quantum technologies can indeed change, or even improve, society systemically, and that such change can be rendered beneficial through the steering of the technology’s “course”. Quantum-ELSPI sees the problem of quantum innovation as to be institutionalised along the lines of responsible innovation – innovation that needs further demystification, contextualisation, stakeholder engagement, regulation and strategic positioning – reinforcing notions of “good” held by Western democracies and stakeholder capitalism. Indeed, notions of democracy in Quantum-ELSPI appear only in the sense of liberal democracies, and all other forms of governments are referred to as “authoritarian”.^{Footnote 67} If Quantum-ELSPI is an emergent framework, it emerges from the existing social orders of Western knowledge states. It institutionalises how such a “good” quantum future is to be pursued vis-à-vis a research framework.

Quantum humanities have a different starting point of inquiry. Instead of assuming that quantum technologies will be revolutionary,^{Footnote 68} we assert that such claims serve to stabilise the institutionalisation of a future while obfuscating such a pursuit’s uncertainty. Thus, the analysis of quantum humanities encompasses highlighting the collectives making such claims and under what authority, and the claims’ historicity and materiality. Therefore, we acknowledge that social orders and quantum technological orders are co-produced.^{Footnote 69} That is, quantum science and technology are not merely stabilisers of a society that funds their development, but simultaneously they are efforts stabilised by social orders such as those of Western liberal democracies and technology-centric notions of democracy.^{Footnote 70} For quantum humanities, a “good” future need not be achieved through quantum technologies. Instead, the question of whether there exists a revolutionary or “good” quantum future, and for whom, remains to be resolved.

We argue that no quantum technology can be separated from the human, and therefore a holistic, reflexive and symmetric research programme is needed to analyse how it influences and is influenced by various societal bodies, institutions, cultural practices and human exchanges. The humanities should sit at the centre of what was previously believed to be the purely technical agenda of quantum innovation.

3. Reflections

Quantum computing as knowledge-making may pose important societal questions to reflect on. From an optimisation perspective, they may solve previously intractable problems concerning complex networks. From an AI perspective, they may enable significant increases in speed in language processing. From a materials perspective, they may enable breakthroughs in the design of clean energy alternatives. As a result, we might be able to ask: what can we know? How can we acquire new or accelerated knowledge? For whom is this knowledge important? Who is being left out of knowing? What power relations are built up and further established? And how are inequalities transformed? Therefore, quantum humanities are uniquely poised to study the methods, processes and implications of knowledge-making through quantum computers. Put differently, reflecting on quantum computing’s methods, processes and implications may shed light on current uncomfortable truths, assumptions and values. Given that quantum computing is in its early stages, reflecting on these values, assumptions and pitfalls may alter the ways in which the technology is implemented and the knowledge we decide to pursue. Whether we trust a quantum computer’s output – or see our research priorities as questionable due to the probabilistic nature of measurements – may tell us much about the values and assumptions that our society comes to live by^{Footnote 71}:

Reflections on methods are of practical importance as this technology becomes a research tool. Digital humanities emphasise quantitative research into the research limitations and opportunities of classification, clustering and data reduction^{Footnote 73} and the importance of attending to the ways in which large amounts of data are obtained and processed.^{Footnote 74} Similarly, repositories of quantum natural language processing exemplify early equivalent problematisations.^{Footnote 75} Early quantum computing requires classical verification to be trustworthy. This verification demands the processing of insurmountable amounts of data, as shown in Google’s experiment claiming quantum “supremacy”.^{Footnote 76} Such processing is not scalable, resulting in quantum experts designing cultural norms for claiming trustworthy results in the presence of smaller datasets^{Footnote 77} or hardware noise.^{Footnote 78} Quantum humanities may study the practical construction of norms, the power dynamics of their stabilisation and what these norms may tell us about classical data.

Reflections on processes may shed light on how quantum-enabled knowledge comes to be known. These reflections need not be informed by the minute details of the technology, but they may need general knowledge of the technology’s underpinnings or the state of the art.^{Footnote 79} One of the most significantly different concepts of quantum technologies that digital technologies do not onboard is the link between quantum mechanics and the nature of reality. Ontological theories of nature resulting from quantum mechanics have significant implications for our understanding of space (teleportation^{Footnote 80}), time (time reversal algorithms^{Footnote 81}) and matter (quantum dots^{Footnote 82}). At its core, therefore, the study of the phenomenon is transdisciplinary work.

Reflections on new knowledge needs to focus both on the unique impacts of quantum computers and on the impacts quantum technology has when assisting other technologies. For example, quantum computers may render current encryption obsolete,^{Footnote 83} and they may also impact the use of systems of surveillance through quantum-assisted AI.^{Footnote 84} As a result, the epistemologies that are supported and changed by quantum technology could affect human coexistence and impact the humanities and social sciences. This dimension of new knowledge could bring us, for instance, to revise our models and assumptions regarding resources in game theory. This field also includes the measurement of success, such as the analysis of patents filed worldwide and the quality of those patents, as competition is a main force within this development.^{Footnote 85}

As noted above, quantum technologies may lead to reflecting on the ontology of nature, data and epistemology. This line of questioning makes quantum humanities different from digital humanities.^{Footnote 86}

For example, ever since the development of quantum mechanics in the early twentieth century, scientists and philosophers have intensely debated what quantum mechanics tells us about the nature of reality. One dominant view is the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation (CI), which proposes that reality is changed by human and non-human observation through the so-called wavefunction collapse.^{Footnote 87} The CI was first summarised by Bohr, Weigner and Heisenberg, who claimed it as an indisputable interpretation of reality at the 1927 Solvay Conference.^{Footnote 88} This proclamation was so authoritative that different interpretations (“pilot-wave”, proposed by de Broglie^{Footnote 89}; and “many-worlds”, proposed by Everett and Deutsch^{Footnote 90}) remain largely understudied, even though they are consistent with experimental outcomes.^{Footnote 91}

Albert Einstein called the CI paradoxical and an “incomplete” theory as it violated the assumptions of realism and locality that Einstein’s own theory of relativity rested on.^{Footnote 92} In 1964, physicist John Bell theorised an experiment – called an “inequality” – that, in 1972, proved that Einstein’s assumption of locality is incompatible with experimental observations. However, Bell also realised that his inequality, while not validating the CI, constrained it to being non-local and non-real. That is, an object is perceived by measuring it many times, but it can never be seen as it really is.

Other interpretations, such as the pilot-wave interpretation, propose that reality exists, but we just cannot observe it directly – these are often called ontological theories. Recently, constructor theory has been developed.^{Footnote 93} Regardless of this discrepancy, the belief in quantum mechanics as an epistemic theory has impacted the way people see the world today.^{Footnote 94} If quantum mechanics as an epistemic theory is accepted, then what do we decide to know next, without looking for an objective answer but for a clearer vision of the future?^{Footnote 95} For some, the future is one without quantum computers^{Footnote 96}; for others, it is a future with quantum computers developed for only socially valued industries – such as healthcare – that are properly protected by the state.^{Footnote 97} For others still, quantum computers can be designed within markets as long as they produce human understanding,^{Footnote 98} public education,^{Footnote 99} solutions that accelerate the growth of corporations,^{Footnote 100} as a way to increase the safety of vulnerable individuals or as a means to secure a position in the international race for military development.^{Footnote 101}

Similarly, as such outcomes are probabilistically observed, what constitutes a result is socially constructed. For example, a quantum computer is used to solve problems by first running an algorithm in it and then making a measurement that collapses the wavefunction to a definite result. By repeating this experiment many times and collecting the statistics of the observed measurements, the experimentalist can discern patterns that can then be claimed to be answers to the problem that the computer was trying to solve. But for such a claim to carry weight, standards and metrics have to be socially constructed to establish a methodology of validation.

4. Development

In the context of quantum humanities, the development of quantum computing technology is an important area of study. This includes not only the technical aspects of the development of quantum computers, but also their creation, regulation and design,^{Footnote 102} as well as the broader social, cultural and political context in which this technology is being developed. Understanding the development of quantum computing can help us anticipate its potential implications and applications in the fields of the humanities and social sciences. It can also provide insights into the conditions of knowledge production and how science is influenced by societal factors.

This understanding can be useful for researchers and policymakers working in the field of quantum humanities, as it can help them make informed decisions about the direction and focus of their research and policy considerations. Technological innovation has always been a trigger for societal change. However, it is not an inherently logical and linear development process. Post-digitisation, although a driver of development, is characterised by mutual influence from the society in whose institutional framework it is located and the technology that exists or is being developed. The development of technology could serve as the first marker at this point because, of course, the development of technology could offer us the first clues as to its agency, to the classification of the implications being focused upon and also for reflection. Even though it is almost impossible to define a point zero in the development of a technology, important part of quantum humanities are visiting researchers at their laboratories and talking to inventors, developers or entrepreneurs. One work that can be cited on the development of quantum computers with a particular focus on their developers is the observational and reflection study by Werner Vogd.^{Footnote 103} He visited Anton Zeilinger at his laboratory and discussed how knowledge is created in sociology and quantum physics and what aspects such knowledge-creation processes share. This dimension of quantum humanities also encompasses questions about the conditions of knowledge production, be they legal frameworks for research or research acts, policies such as the project funding landscape and policy innovation management, how science is influenced by day-to-day practices, and so on. Anticipating what a technology might entail, how it might be applied and what meaning it might have one day can also be found in our paper because the step between application and implication is precisely the anticipation of what meaning an application will have for one’s subject area. Development thus goes beyond the commercial application of technology as a point of investigation and consideration.^{Footnote 104}

In addition to studying the technological innovations in the field of quantum computing, the subfield of development should study the educational standards and institutions emerging in the field. As we have seen in recent years, industry leaders^{Footnote 105} and enthusiasts have started developing education approaches and credentials to solidify career paths in quantum computing programming. These education approaches as well as those being independently developed by institutions (eg quantum science and engineering (QSE) PhDs with quantum computing specialisations) around the globe will prove critical to supporting development in these fields.^{Footnote 106}

Quantum computing is viewed as a technology with the potential to perform specific tasks in very different scientific fields. To determine the implications of quantum computers, experts rely on their knowledge and insights to envision these possibilities. They ascribe meaning to the object of a quantum computer. This initial stage sets the course for future developments, though the meaning of an object can always be reinterpreted.^{Footnote 107} The assignment of meaning to an object will have effects on the societal embeddedness of the quantum computer. The quantum computer is developed by people who live in our midst – they often share general basic assumptions about our lives, culture and so on.

Therefore, the development of this technology, as well as the use of it, is of interest to quantum humanities. The development of scientific and technological ideas, inventions and discoveries and the associated social and cultural contexts are topics of historical studies, cultural studies and so on, as cultural dimensions of technology development and the influence of cultural identity on technology development are also addressed here. In addition to the utilisation of technology, there is the process of technology development, which occurs before its implementation and involves active participation. Within the legal sciences, especially legal theory, the fields of law and ethics are linked in such a way that moral questions and responsibilities in connection with technology development, ethical guidelines and principles for the responsible development of technology are developed and discussed. Since political science emerged from the study of constitutional law, references to political science can also be found here. Technical innovations have dynamics, and their developmental steps are the results of cultural actions.^{Footnote 108}

Lastly, the development subfield must also explore the concept of convergence between quantum computing and traditional digital tools. Because quantum computers are not being developed in a technological vacuum, advances in graphics processing units (GPUs), machine learning, high-performance computing systems and traditional system architectures are bound to affect their development, as they all continue to develop simultaneously. Additionally, industry itself is moving towards hybrid classical and quantum systems to incorporate “the best of both worlds” when solving the problems of tomorrow. This can clearly be seen by the emergence of the quantum processing unit (QPU), in a similar fashion to the integration of GPUs in the modern architecture. Moreover, the idea of convergence is supported by national governments, as is exemplified by the creation of NASA’s quantum and AI laboratory, which aims to demonstrate the utility of quantum machine learning.^{Footnote 109}

1. Theses on quantum humanities

1. (1) Quantum mechanics could affect our understanding of time, distance, space and information transfer, leading to ontological, constructivist and epistemological changes. Quantum humanities aims to incorporate these changes into its research concepts, moving away from predetermined notions and embracing a transdisciplinary view.

2. (2) Quantum humanities aims to apply the principles and concepts of quantum mechanics to study and understand various aspects of human culture, society and knowledge. Technological innovation and use are intertwined with cultural practices, social understandings and everyday actions.

3. (3) Quantum humanities reflects on the historical–social processes that lead to the acquisition of understanding of the world through quantum theories and technologies and explores how knowledge is generated through these technologies.

4. (4) Similarly to quantum mechanics, quantum humanities proposes that the world can only be epistemologically understood, and thus no stable version of what the world is exists outside of human action and interpretation. We call into question any claim of objectivity in data, algorithms, technological development or human action.

5. (5) Quantum humanities differs from digital humanities, which primarily focus on the use of digital technologies in humanities research, by emphasising the qualitative value derived from quantum mechanics in addition to the use of quantum technologies in humanities research.

6. (6) The applications of quantum technology in quantum humanities extend beyond the use of quantum computers as research tools. Quantum humanities recognise that computation and survey strategies are changing, leading to a new approach that impacts society and research in the humanities and the social sciences. The choice of methods in quantum humanities must remain open as observations inevitably impact reality.

7. (7) Quantum humanities acknowledge the emergence of a new set of quantum technologies and their potential for disruptive innovation. They recognise the birth of new machines, processes, cultures, activities and knowledge. Therefore, they explore the possible implications of quantum technologies and the possible impacts of these changes. Yet the development of concepts in quantum humanities extends beyond specific fields of social regulation, such as ethics or politics, to encompass broader contexts and interconnections.

8. (8) Quantum humanities critically question the assumption of a revolutionary future through quantum technologies or that these technologies can enable a “good” future that can be achieved through study, seeing in this an illegitimate stabilisation of a particular vision of the future through science, potentially entrenching certain normative views. Quantum humanities argue that such claims obscure the uncertainty of pursuing such visions of the future. They emphasise the need for a holistic, reflexive and symmetrical research programme to analyse how quantum technology is influenced by different social actors, institutions, cultural practices and human exchanges, and vice versa.

9. (9) Quantum humanities acknowledge that quantum technologies do not develop in a vacuum, and that they will be tied to other emerging technologies. As such, our studies must take into account this convergence and equally converge with other fields that shed more complete light on the objects of study.