Discrete time has, rightly, not generally been taken very seriously with the standard conceptual framework for understanding reality. I say ‘rightly’ only because when fully understood, discrete time seems like nonsense or an impossibility from the perspective of our common sense experience of time. Yet perhaps the standard conceptual framework which is assumed is incorrect. In this paper I will outline an understanding of the nature of time which demands a questioning of reductionism and therefore challenges this framework, and claim it is an inadequate conceptual framework for describing and understanding reality. In particular, I outline here from empirical observation how the phenomena of Quantum Entanglement can support a conceptually irreducible reality.
Discrete time has, rightly, not generally been taken very seriously with the standard conceptual framework for understanding reality. I say ‘rightly’ only because when fully understood, discrete time seems like nonsense or an impossibility from the perspective of our common sense experience of time. Yet perhaps the standard conceptual framework which is assumed is incorrect. In this paper I will outline an understanding of the nature of time which demands a questioning of reductionism and therefore challenges this framework, and claim it is an inadequate conceptual framework for describing and understanding reality. In particular, I outline here from empirical observation how the phenomena of Quantum Entanglement can support a conceptually irreducible reality.
Abstract Modern physics has achieved extraordinary predictive success through continuous mathematical formulations. However, the underlying nature of space, time, and physical processes remains conceptually open. This work presents a conceptual framework in which physical reality is interpreted as a discrete phase-supported structure. Space is considered as a lattice of elementary units separated at approximately the Planck scale, while time emerges through successive phase-closure events. Within this picture, energy transport, quantum coherence, and observable events are not continuous processes but arise from structured phase propagation. A triadic propagation mechanism naturally generates hexagonal connectivity, while phase closure defines the emergence of physical events. Rather than proposing new physical laws, this work suggests a broader interpretational perspective, encouraging reconsideration of continuity-based assumptions and inviting exploration of phase-based descriptions of physical reality. Author’s Perspective : I would like to submit the attached manuscript entitled: “Quantum Phase, Discrete Space, and the Limits of Continuity: A Conceptual Framework Toward a Phase-Based Interpretation of Physical Reality” for consideration as a conceptual or perspective article in your journal. The work presents a unified interpretational framework in which physical processes are described in terms of discrete phase propagation and phase closure. Rather than introducing new physical laws, the manuscript offers a geometrical and phase-based perspective that aims
Today, many concepts from the dictionaries of academic psychology have entered the language of everyday communication. Perhaps the most common are the concepts of «subjective» and «objective». In many textbooks of psychology, «objective» is understood as something that belongs to the object itself, something that does not depend on the subject. The objective is opposed to the subjective-personal. Experimental research in the field of quantum physics questioned the division of the world into an impartial «objective reality» and its «subjective» (not impartial, biased) reflection, which provoked a crisis in this field of knowledge and the methodology of science as a whole. The main methodological problems of psychology are the question of the place of the mental in nature; on the relationship of mental and material phenomena, on the possibilities of human cognition - questions that also arose in the depths of quantum physics and were predetermined by the internal logic of their development. An excursion into quantum physics was necessary, firstly, for a deep understanding that reality is given to us in our sensations, perceptions, ideas and mental constructs (this was evidenced by the so-called «double slit experiment» and its interpretations) and we cannot say anything about reality as it is «in itself»; secondly, the realization that the foundations on which our knowledge is built differ from those in quantum physics. Currently, there is a dichotomy between material (physical) and conceptual reality. Thus, the principle of locality, which professes ordinary consciousness and according to which specific objects occupy a specific place in time and space, contradicts the principle of non-locality, according to which isolated systems do not exist at all and every particle of the universe is in «instantaneous» communication with all other particles. The world is created from the same quantum substance and it is impossible to say that one is the cause of the other. (This statement implies, in particular, a rethinking of the «principle of determinism» which requires the establishment of unambiguous causal relationships). The reality in which we live is not quantum, our language and stereotypes of thinking do not correspond to the nature of the phenomena described by quantum physics. It is about the deep properties of matter. Personally, I got the impression that the deeper you plunge into the world of atomic and subatomic, the more the outlines of the specific, material world familiar to us become blurred and the thinner the line between the physical and conceptual world, between the material and the spiritual becomes. The purpose of this article is to define the concepts of "objective" and "subjective" based on the analysis of achievements in quantum physics in the context of psychology.
Despite the obvious utility of the concept, it has often been argued that time does not exist. I take the opposite perspective: let's imagine that time does exist, and the universe is described by a quantum state obeying ordinary time-dependent quantum mechanics. Reconciling this simple picture with the known facts about our universe turns out to be a non-trivial task, but by taking it seriously we can infer deep facts about the fundamental nature of reality. The arrow of time finds a plausible explanation in a "Heraclitean universe," described by a quantum state eternally evolving in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space.
The words: determinism, hidden variables, subjectivism, information, objectivism, informational-theoretic axioms,observers have some connection with physical reality? What we mean with "description" of physical reality? When we say that we understand this reality? Certain parameters:position, velocity are sufficient? We will focus only to conceptual considerations regarding the relation between the "questions" and the relative "answers" in general and specifically in quantum mechanics. It is usually believed that the answers are more important of the questions, for this reason we can read many answers everywhere and in different field of knowledge. We need to add and clarify some things: (i) usually an answers require a question, (ii) but, as we know, their relation is not so simple and immediate, (iii) For instance: a)an epistemic questions give us ontic answers? b)the answer has a connection with the question and vice versa? c)we could to infer a question starting from an answer? d)there are answers without questions? These answers could be in some framework considered as ontic answers? The relative scientific works are the same time ontic? Speaking of quantum mechanics we see around many answers in the meantime we do not see the correspondent questions, these answers seem completely independent, and this seem a right road, the road of the independent nature unlinked from human thoughts. We retain instead that questions can affect the possible answers. Exist "something" before the question?
What is time? This book explores the hypothesis that time is discrete rather than continuous. Time is an enigma, so we should expect some metaphysics and philosophy to creep into the discussion. Our inclination is to avoid those disciplines as much as possible, so let us deal with them right now. Metaphysics and philosophy deal with statements and conjectures that cannot be empirically validated. In those disciplines there are constant references to absolutes such as existence, good and bad, and suchlike without further qualification, as if everyone accepted them as meaningful concepts. Absolutes are the key things we wish to avoid. For the record, we define an absolute statement as one that is considered to be true regardless of any caveats or criteria, i.e., context-free. In contrast, a contextual statement has a truth value that is meaningful only relative to its particular context. The idea that physical truth can be contextual is an unfamiliar and uncomfortable one to physicists conditioned to believe that the laws of physics transcend the context of observation because they can be empirically validated. In fact, that is a circular line of reasoning. Every experiment is defined by its own context and experimentalists have to work hard to create that context: the search for the Higgs particle at the Large Hadron Collider did not happen overnight.