In this paper we address a deeply interesting debate that took place at the end of the last millennia between David Mermin, Adan Cabello and Michiel Seevinck, regarding the meaning of relationalism within quantum theory. In a series of papers, Mermin proposed an interpretation in which quantum correlations were considered as elements of physical reality. Unfortunately, the very young relational proposal by Mermin was too soon tackled by specially suited no-go theorems designed by Cabello and Seevinck. In this work we attempt to reconsider Mermin's program from the viewpoint of the Logos Categorical Approach to QM. Following Mermin's original proposal, we will provide a redefinition of quantum relation which not only can be understood as a preexistent element of physical reality but is also capable to escape Cabello's and Seevinck's no-go-theorems. In order to show explicitly that our notion of ontological quantum relation is safe from no-go theorems we will derive a non-contextuality theorem. We end the paper with a discussion regarding the physical meaning of quantum relationalism.
In this paper we address a deeply interesting debate that took place at the end of the last millennia between David Mermin, Adan Cabello and Michiel Seevinck, regarding the meaning of relationalism within quantum theory. In a series of papers, Mermin proposed an interpretation in which quantum correlations were considered as elements of physical reality. Unfortunately, the very young relational proposal by Mermin was too soon tackled by specially suited no-go theorems designed by Cabello and Seevinck. In this work we attempt to reconsider Mermin's program from the viewpoint of the Logos Categorical Approach to QM. Following Mermin's original proposal, we will provide a redefinition of quantum relation which not only can be understood as a preexistent element of physical reality but is also capable to escape Cabello's and Seevinck's no-go-theorems. In order to show explicitly that our notion of ontological quantum relation is safe from no-go theorems we will derive a non-contextuality theorem. We end the paper with a discussion regarding the physical meaning of quantum relationalism.
Quantum mechanics has transformed our understanding of reality, yet deep philosophical puzzles remain unresolved. Is there a consistent way to describe quantum measurement, the emergence of space and time, and the role of observers within one coherent ontology? This paper introduces Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD), an interpretation that places relationships and information—not isolated objects—at the foundation of physics. Unlike traditional views, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, Everett’s many-worlds theory, or hidden-variable approaches, RQD denies a single observer-independent reality, instead proposing that facts only become definite within specific observational contexts. It explicitly addresses foundational no-go results, including Bell’s theorem, the Kochen–Specker theorem, and the Frauchiger–Renner paradox, by replacing absolute facts with relational, context-dependent truths. RQD rests on five interlocking principles: (1) quantum states are contextual and observer-relative, (2) time emerges from quantum interactions rather than existing as an external parameter, (3) space is constructed from patterns of quantum entanglement, (4) observers emerge as systems with highly integrated information, and (5) classical reality appears through quantum decoherence without special wavefunction collapse. Philosophically, RQD aligns with ontic structural realism, proposing that the fundamental ontology of the universe consists entirely of informational relations. It avoids collapsing into relativism or solipsism by ensuring intersubjective agreement through physical interactions. Ultimately, RQD may offer a unified picture in which quantum mechanics, spacetime, and observers are no longer separate domains but aspects of one interconnected informational web.
Quantum mechanics has transformed our understanding of reality, yet deep philosophical puzzles remain unresolved. Is there a consistent way to describe quantum measurement, the emergence of space and time, and the role of observers within one coherent ontology? This paper introduces Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD), an interpretation that places relationships and information, not isolated objects, at the foundation of physics. Unlike traditional views, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, Everett's many-worlds theory, or hidden-variable approaches, RQD denies a single observer-independent reality, instead proposing that facts only become definite within specific observational contexts. It explicitly addresses foundational no-go results, including Bell's theorem, the Kochen-Specker theorem, and the Frauchiger-Renner paradox, by replacing absolute facts with relational, context-dependent truths. RQD rests on five interlocking principles: (1) quantum states are contextual and observer-relative, (2) time emerges from quantum interactions rather than existing as an external parameter, (3) space is constructed from patterns of quantum entanglement, (4) observers emerge as systems with highly integrated information, and (5) classical reality appears through quantum decoherence without special wavefunction collapse. Philosophically, RQD aligns with ontic structural realism, proposing that the fundamental ontology of the universe consists entirely of informational relations. It avoids collapsing into relativism or solipsism by ensuring intersubjective agreement through physical interactions. Ultimately, RQD may offer a unified picture in which quantum mechanics, spacetime, and observers are no longer separate domains but aspects of one interconnected informational web.
I argue that properties and relations are in the same boat with respect to quantum mechanics. That just as properties cannot be considered as “hidden variables” so also neither can the relation of being correlated with. Nevertheless properties and relations can both be understood as incomplete expressions: they are both contextual, properly understood. The argument on this leverages a neglected proof by Adán Cabello. We show that this latter argument extends and strengthens an argument given by van Fraassen in his (2006). The argument given also considerably strengthens the arguments given previously by Cao (2003) and Psillos (2006). I end by sketching a way of understanding that this contextuality is similar across relativity theory and quantum theory
In this paper we consider the notion of quantum entanglement from the perspective of the logos categorical approach [26, 27]. Firstly, we will argue that the widespread distinctions, on the one hand, between pure states and mixed states, and on the other, between separable states and entangled states, are completely superfluous when considering the orthodox mathematical formalism of QM. We will then argue that the introduction of these distinctions within the theory of quanta is due to another two completely unjustified metaphysical presuppositions, namely, the idea that there is a "collapse" of quantum states when being measured and the idea that QM talks about "elementary particles". At distance from these distinctions and taking the logos approach as a standpoint, we will propose an objective formal account of the notion of entanglement in terms of potential coding which introduces the necessary distinction between intensive relations and effective relations. We will also discuss how this new definition of entanglement provides an anschaulich content to this --supposedly "spooky"-- quantum relational feature.
One of the most puzzling facts about quantum mechanics is that although quantum theory offers a very accurate framework encompassing phenomena going from chemistry to high energy physics, it does not provide us with clear indications favoring some world view in the relativistic domain. Consequently, many physicists have held an instrumentalist point of view. Even though in non-relativistic physics already exists a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics due to Heisenberg, who considers quantum states as states of disposition (the real tendency interpretation), the efforts for extending this interpretation to the relativistic domain were found wanting. The basic problem is the dependence of the states on the frame within which collapse takes place. We show here that a suitable use of the causal structure of the devices involved in the measurement process allows us to introduce a covariant notion for the collapse of quantum states and to preserve the tendency interpretation in relativistic quantum mechanics. However, we shall see that this extended interpretation requires the introduction of a relational concept of reality.
Abstract The no-go theorems of Bell and Kochen and Specker could be interpreted as implying that the notions of system and experimental context are fundamentally inseparable. In this interpretation, statements such as ‘spin is “up” along direction x’ are relational statements about the configurations of macroscopic devices which are mediated by the spin and not about any intrinsic properties of the spin. The operational meaning of these statements is provided by the practically infinite resources of macroscopic devices that serve to define the notion of a direction in three-dimensional space. This is the subject of ‘textbook quantum mechanics’: the description of quantum systems in relation to an experimental context. Therefore, the subject that textbook quantum mechanics treats as a formally closed system is not a physically isolated system. The subject rather describes the physical relation that a microscopic system holds with some macroscopic environment. Can one go beyond that? Relational quantum mechanics endeavours to provide a relational description between any quantum systems without the necessity of involving macroscopic devices. However, by applying ‘textbook quantum mechanics’ in such situations, it implicitly assumes infinite resources, even for simple quantum systems such as spins, which have no capacity to define an experimental context. This leads to conceptual difficulties. As an alternative, we analyse Penrose’s spin network proposal as a potential formalisation of quantum theory that goes beyond the textbook framework: a description in presence of finite resources, which is inherently relational and inseparable in the system-context entity.