Chapter 1 begins by re-examining the textbook quantum postulates. It concludes with the realization that some of them are inconsistent with quantum mathematics, but also that they may not have to be postulated. Indeed, in the following two chapters it is shown that their consequences follow from the other, consistent postulates. This simplification of the quantum foundations provides a consistent, convenient, and solid starting point. The emergence of the classical from the quantum substrate is based on this foundation of “core quantum postulates”—the “quantum credo”. Discussion of the postulates is accompanied by a brief summary of their implications for the interpretation of quantum theory. This discussion touches on questions of interpretation that are implicit throughout the book, but will be addressed more fully in Chapter 9. Chapter 1 ends with a “decoherence primer” that provides a quick introduction to decoherence (discussed in detail in Part II). Its aim is to provide the reader with an overview of the process that will play an important role throughout the book, and to motivate Chapters 2 and 3 that lay the foundations for the physics of decoherence (Part II) as well as for quantum Darwinism, the subject of Chapters 7 and 8.

Research suggests that people adopt conspiracy theories in an attempt to satisfy (1) existential (e.g., the need to feel secure and in control), (2) epistemic (e.g., the need to understand the world), and (3) social (e.g., the need to feel positive about one’s self or group) motives (Douglas et al., 2017). In this chapter, we consider the extent to which this framework can explain belief in the QAnon conspiracy theory specifically. QAnon beliefs appear to be driven by existential threats, such as the belief that there is a vast satanic paedophile ring which is being covered up by left-wing Hollywood elites. Regarding epistemic motives, such as the tendency to seek patterns where they do not exist, it becomes understandable why some people might be attracted by cryptic “Q Drops.” Finally, QAnon beliefs are typically right-wing and tend to point the finger towards the left-wing elite for all the alleged wrong-doings. QAnon beliefs, therefore, also appear to be socially motivated. Following the discussion, we outline the similarities and differences between QAnon and other conspiracy theories, and outline ideas for future research.

In Chapter 8, I discuss some of the most salient moral questions, dilemmas, and duties involved in choosing a research community (and conversation) in which to participate. Conducting research in some area, I argue, is not so much a solitary domain choice as a process of becoming socialized to a particular community and to its values, languages, traditions, institutions, and ways of thinking, writing, and working. In some measure, this also means becoming responsible for those traditions and values. I also discuss the ways that participating in a research community involves building the relationships of trust and good faith upon which all science rests, a relational process requiring honesty, the nurturing of cooperative relationships, and other duties. I also emphasize the political, institutional, and economic forces that structure research communities and the necessity of active epistemic citizenship to transform these in ways that serve the collective values of those communities.

Recent trends suggest that international economic law may be witnessing a renaissance of convergence – both parallel and intersectional. The adjudicative process also reveals signs of convergence. These diverse claims of convergence are of legal, empirical and normative interest. Yet, convergence discourse also warrants scepticism. This volume therefore aims to contribute to both the general debate on the fragmentation of international law and the discourse concerning the interplay between international trade and investment, with a particular focus on dispute settlement. It especially seeks to move beyond broad observations or singular case studies to provide an informed and wide-reaching assessment by investigating multiple standards, processes, mechanisms and behaviours. Methodologically, a normative stance is largely eschewed in favour of a range of ‘doctrinal,’ quantitative and qualitative methods that are used to address the research questions. Furthermore, in determining the extent of convergence, it is important to recognize that there is no bright line or clear yardstick for determining its nature or degree.