Abstract Underlying any physical theory is a layer of conceptual frames. They connect the mathematical structures used in theoretical models with the phenomena, but they also constitute our fundamental assumptions about reality. Many of the discrepancies between quantum physics and classical physics (including Maxwell's electrodynamics and relativity) can be traced back to these categorical foundations. We argue that classical physics corresponds to the factual aspects of reality and requires a categorical framework which consists of four interdependent components: boolean logic, the linear‐sequential notion of time, the principle of sufficient reason, and the dichotomy between observer and observed. None of these can be dropped without affecting the others. However, quantum theory also addresses the “status nascendi” of facts, i.e., their coming into being. Therefore, quantum physics requires a different conceptual framework which will be elaborated in this article. It is shown that many of its components are already present in the standard formalisms of quantum physics, but in most cases they are highlighted not so much from a conceptual perspective but more from their mathematical structures. The categorical frame underlying quantum physics includes a profoundly different notion of time which encompasses a crucial role for the present. The article introduces the concept of a categorical apparatus (a framework of interdependent categories), explores the appropriate apparatus for classical and quantum theory, and elaborates in particular on the category of non‐sequential time and an extended present which seems to be relevant for a quantum theory of (space)‐time.
Abstract Underlying any physical theory is a layer of conceptual frames. They connect the mathematical structures used in theoretical models with the phenomena, but they also constitute our fundamental assumptions about reality. Many of the discrepancies between quantum physics and classical physics (including Maxwell's electrodynamics and relativity) can be traced back to these categorical foundations. We argue that classical physics corresponds to the factual aspects of reality and requires a categorical framework which consists of four interdependent components: boolean logic, the linear‐sequential notion of time, the principle of sufficient reason, and the dichotomy between observer and observed. None of these can be dropped without affecting the others. However, quantum theory also addresses the “status nascendi” of facts, i.e., their coming into being. Therefore, quantum physics requires a different conceptual framework which will be elaborated in this article. It is shown that many of its components are already present in the standard formalisms of quantum physics, but in most cases they are highlighted not so much from a conceptual perspective but more from their mathematical structures. The categorical frame underlying quantum physics includes a profoundly different notion of time which encompasses a crucial role for the present. The article introduces the concept of a categorical apparatus (a framework of interdependent categories), explores the appropriate apparatus for classical and quantum theory, and elaborates in particular on the category of non‐sequential time and an extended present which seems to be relevant for a quantum theory of (space)‐time.
Similar problems keep reappearing in both the discussion about the “hard ” problem of consciousness and in fundamental issues in quantum theory. We argue that the similarities are due to common problems within the conceptual foundations of both fields. In quantum physics, the state reduction marks the “coming into being” of a new aspect of reality for which no causal explanation is available. Likewise, the self-referential nature of consciousness constitutes a “coming into being ” of a new quality which goes beyond a fully causal account of reality. Both subjects require a categorical scheme which is significantly richer then the one used in addressing factual aspects of reality alone. While parts of this categorical scheme are realized in the formalism of quantum theory, they are seldom applied in the context of consciousness. We show what the structural limitations of a classical categorical framework are, how a richer framework can be developed, and how it can be applied to both quantum physics and consciousness. Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought”, “a priori givens”, etc. The path of scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors. Therefore it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their excessive authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, or replaced if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason.
Abstract Quantum mechanics and relativity are two of the most successful theoretical frameworks in modern physics, yet their conceptual foundations remain difficult to reconcile at the deepest level. Quantum theory describes physical systems through states, observables, probabilities, measurement contexts, superposition, entanglement, and nonclassical correlations. Relativity describes physical processes through space-time structure, causal order, invariant physical law, observer-dependent decomposition of time and space, and constraints on signal propagation. This article examines the conceptual relationship between quantum measurement, relativistic causality, and space-time description. The purpose is not to present a mathematical unification but to analyze how the two frameworks organize physical explanation differently and where their interpretive tensions arise. Special attention is given to the measurement problem, the status of quantum states, the role of observers and reference frames, the meaning of locality, the distinction between correlation and causal influence, and the challenge of describing quantum processes without privileging a single global time. The article argues that many apparent conflicts between quantum theory and relativity result from importing classical intuitions into domains where they no longer apply. Quantum entanglement does not permit controllable faster-than-light communication, yet it challenges classical separability. Relativity forbids superluminal signaling, yet it does not require that all physically meaningful correlations be reducible to local classical properties. Measurement introduces another difficulty because standard quantum theory often describes state update in a way that appears instantaneous, while relativistic space-time does not provide a universal present. The discussion develops a conceptual framework in which quantum measurement is treated as a physical interaction, relativistic causality as a constraint on operational influence, and space-time description as an organizing structure for events rather than a simple background stage. This analysis is relevant for quantum field theory, quantum information, relativistic quantum foundations, and future approaches to quantum gravity.
Categorical quantum mechanics is a way of formalising the structural features of quantum theory using category theory. It uses compound systems as the primitive notion, which is formalised by using symmetric monoidal categories. This leads to an elegant formalism for describing quantum protocols such as quantum teleportation. In particular, categorical quantum mechanics provides a graphical calculus that exposes the information flow of such protocols in an intuitive way. However, the graphical calculus also reveals surprising features of these protocols; for example, in the quantum teleportation protocol, information appears to flow `backwards-in-time'. This leads to question of how causal structure can be described within categorical quantum mechanics, and how this might lead to insight regarding the structural compatibility between quantum theory and relativity. This thesis is concerned with the project of formalising causal structure in categorical quantum mechanics. We begin by studying an abstract view of Bell-type experiments, as described by `no-signalling boxes', and we show that under time-reversal no-signalling boxes generically become signalling. This conflicts with the underlying symmetry of relativistic causal structure. This leads us to consider the framework of categorical quantum mechanics from the perspective of relativistic causal structure. We derive the properties that a symmetric monoidal category must satisfy in order to describe systems in such a background causal structure. We use these properties to define a new type of category, and this provides a formal framework for describing protocols in spacetime. We explore this new structure, showing how it leads to an understanding of the counter-intuitive information flow of protocols in categorical quantum mechanics. We then find that the formal properties of our new structure are naturally related to axioms for reconstructing quantum theory, and we show how a reconstruction scheme based on purification can be formalised using the structures of categorical quantum mechanics. Finally, we discuss the philosophical aspects of using category theory to describe fundamental physics. We consider a recent argument that category-theoretic formulations of physics, such as categorical quantum mechanics, can be used to support a variant of structural realism. We argue against this claim. The work of this thesis suggests instead that the philosophy of categorical quantum mechanics is subtler than either operationalism or realism.
Categorical quantum mechanics is a way of formalising the structural features of quantum theory using category theory. It uses compound systems as the primitive notion, which is formalised by using symmetric monoidal categories. This leads to an elegant formalism for describing quantum protocols such as quantum teleportation. In particular, categorical quantum mechanics provides a graphical calculus that exposes the information flow of such protocols in an intuitive way.
However, the graphical calculus also reveals surprising features of these protocols; for example, in the quantum teleportation protocol, information appears to flow `backwards-in-time'. This leads to question of how causal structure can be described within categorical quantum mechanics, and how this might lead to insight regarding the structural compatibility between quantum theory and relativity.
This thesis is concerned with the project of formalising causal structure in categorical quantum mechanics.
We begin by studying an abstract view of Bell-type experiments, as described by `no-signalling boxes', and we show that under time-reversal no-signalling boxes generically become signalling. This conflicts with the underlying symmetry of relativistic causal structure.
This leads us to consider the framework of categorical quantum mechanics from the perspective of relativistic causal structure. We derive the properties that a symmetric monoidal category must satisfy in order to describe systems in such a background causal structure.
We use these properties to define a new type of category, and this provides a formal framework for describing protocols in spacetime. We explore this new structure, showing how it leads to an understanding of the counter-intuitive information flow of protocols in categorical quantum mechanics. We then find that the formal properties of our new structure are naturally related to axioms for reconstructing quantum theory, and we show how a reconstruction scheme based on purification can be formalised using the structures of categorical quantum mechanics. Finally, we discuss the philosophical aspects of using category theory to describe fundamental physics. We consider a recent argument that category-theoretic formulations of physics, such as categorical quantum mechanics, can be used to support a variant of structural realism. We argue against this claim. The work of this thesis suggests instead that the philosophy of categorical quantum mechanics is subtler than either operationalism or realism.
The distinction between classical physics and quantum physics is traditionally analyzed based on concepts such as determinism, the continuous or discrete nature of variables, the non-commutativity of observables, and the superposition of states. This article proposes a more fundamental reinterpretation based on two complementary conceptual ingredients. The first is a minimal relational epistemology, developed from the author's previous work, in which space and time are not a priori frames but emerge from comparisons of movements between systems. The second is an analysis of the role played by the possibility—or impossibility—of defining independent events, a possibility that depends precisely on the prior construction of a spatio-temporal and causal structure. We show that the essential difference between classical physics and quantum physics lies in the rule of probability composition, and not in the features usually invoked. Quantum physics appears to be a coherent description of a physical regime prior to the establishment of the causal independence of events. The two conceptual ingredients are summarized in the form of axioms, broad enough to offer a new perspective on the usual notions of quantum physics, which we review here. Accompanying this text, another article presents more technical developments.
This paper proposes a conceptual reinterpretation of the wave–particle duality by introducing a relational and temporally emergent perspective on measurement and physical properties. Instead of treating waves and particles as competing ontological categories, the study argues that they represent different relational realizations of the same underlying process. Wave descriptions capture relational structures extending across time and space, while particle descriptions correspond to localized events generated through temporally fixing measurement interactions. By reframing measurement as a form of temporal coordination rather than passive observation, the article suggests that the apparent paradox of wave–particle duality emerges from classical assumptions about objects and time. The proposed framework situates quantum phenomena within a broader relational ontology in which time, events, and structures arise through interaction. This perspective aims to clarify conceptual foundations of quantum theory without modifying its formalism, while also highlighting parallels between coordination processes in physical, biological, and social systems.