Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Foundations of Physics

Epistemic Primacy vs. Ontological Elusiveness of Spatial Extension: Is There an Evolutionary Role for the Quantum?

Massimo Pauri

Published Jul 28, 2011• 2 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/s10701-011-9581-0

Related papers

Two theories of decoherence

Ulrich Mohrhoff

Theories of decoherence come in two flavors---Platonic and Aristotelian. Platonists grant ontological primacy to the concepts and mathematical symbols by which we describe or comprehend the physical world. Aristotelians grant it to the physical world. The significance one attaches to the phenomenon of decoherence depends on the school to which one belongs. The debate about the significance of quantum states has for the most part been carried on between Platonists and Kantians, who advocate an epistemic interpretation, with Aristotelians caught in the crossfire. For the latter, quantum states are neither states of Nature nor states of knowledge. The real issue is not the kind of reality that we should attribute to quantum states but the reality of the spatial and temporal distinctions that we make. Once this is recognized, the necessity of attributing ontological primacy to facts becomes obvious, the Platonic stance becomes inconsistent, and the Kantian point of view becomes unnecessarily restrictive and unilluminating.

arXiv:quant-ph/0108002•Aug 1, 2001•2 citations

Epistemological Perspective on Quantum Theory

Eugene Paul Wigner

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1973•21 citations

Why Ze is not Many-Worlds

Jaba Tkemaladze

This paper presents a definitive refutation of the recurring conjecture that the Ze framework constitutes a variant of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. Through a systematic, point-by-point analysis, we demonstrate that the two are radically orthogonal paradigms, separated by irreconcilable differences in their foundational principles. While both reject the notion of a fundamental wavefunction collapse, MWI responds by positing an ever-branching multiverse where all quantum possibilities are ontologically real. In stark contrast, the Ze framework, grounded in the principles of active inference and free energy minimization, preserves a single-world ontology. It reinterprets quantum superpositions as manifestations of unresolved epistemic model conflict within an adaptive system, and "measurement" as the physical process of forced localization, where a definite history crystallizes. The analysis conclusively distinguishes Ze from MWI across critical dimensions: the nature of alternatives (ontological worlds vs. epistemic models), the process of definiteness (subjective branching vs. objective optimization), the role of the observer (covert privilege vs. its elimination), and the capacity for empirical prediction. We conclude that Ze is not an interpretation of quantum formalism but a broader theory of how adaptive systems, from particles to brains, resolve uncertainty, thereby offering a monistic, parsimonious, and empirically grounded alternative to the inflationary ontology of the multiverse.

Longevity Horizon•Jan 14, 2026•7 citations

Epistemological Perspective on Quantum Theory

Eugene Paul Wigner

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1973•2 citations

1905 vs 2022: How Two Einstein Papers Dissolve the Nobel's Nonlocality

Andre Guzzon

Abstract Modern physics contains celebrated foundational problems whose empirical foundations are exceptionally strong while some ontological narratives attached to them are less tightly constrained. This paper develops a local logic audit of individual inferential transitions from established empirical facts O and accepted formal constraints F to stronger physical or ontological conclusions P. Core Unit: A single inferential arrow: given O and F, does P follow? If (O AND F) does not entail P, P is not declared false; it is returned to the status of an additional premise. Methodology: Subtractive and prior to solution-building—before asking how a proposed process X occurs, the audit asks whether the declared O and F establish that X occurs at all. Adjudication: Once inputs are declared, adjudication is logical rather than interpretive. Factual primacy is epistemic rather than metaphysical: a formal derivation cannot supply its own empirical warrant, and a prediction must return to an independently acquired record before it can function as evidence. Domain-Specific Audits The method is applied through three domain-specific audits, with a transversal question-level audit operating within them rather than constituting a fourth domain: 1. The Double-Slit Experiment: Physical which-path interactions alter the relevant state without requiring any special causal role for conscious observation; sequential localized detections nevertheless accumulate into an interference distribution, while quantum-eraser protocols display conditioned correlations without retroactively changing an earlier local record. 2. Reflexive Born-Rule & Entanglement: Separates empirical success, formal derivation, and ontological explanation. The familiar question "what physically collapses the wavefunction?" is audited before it is answered: a formal state update does not by itself establish an ontic wavefunction undergoing a literal physical collapse. In entanglement, operational differentiation, spatial separation, and dynamical decoupling do not by themselves establish physical severance or exhaustive ontological decomposition; the same audit is applied to the EPR Reality Criterion and to narratives of nonlocal recoordination. Relativistic Physics & Quantum Gravity 3. Background Ontology: The third audit asks what background ontology quantum foundations actually require from relativistic physics. Clock relations and Lorentzian structure do not by itself entail time as an independently fundamental substance or four-dimensional spacetime as the uniquely fundamental ontology. Gravitational phenomena and the tested structure of general relativity likewise constrain any deeper account without uniquely fixing its ontology. The GPS Example: The distinction among ontology, physics, and engineering is made explicit through the GPS example: technological dependence on relativistic timing validates the physical relations required for operation while fundamental ontology remains a further question. Quantum-Gravity Audit: Asks what observation, prediction, or formal structure of established quantum theory presently fails in an empirically demonstrated way because gravity has not been made a fundamental quantum interaction, separating cross-framework consistency from prior commitment to one ontology of the deeper theory.

•Jan 2, 2026•0 citations

Quantum Epistemology from Mimicry and Ambiguity

Han Geurdes

arXiv:2005.03980•Axiomathes•Apr 17, 2020•1 citation
Theories of decoherence come in two flavors---Platonic and Aristotelian. Platonists grant ontological primacy to the concepts and mathematical symbols by which we describe or comprehend the physical world. Aristotelians grant it to the physical world. The significance one attaches to the phenomenon of decoherence depends on the school to which one belongs. The debate about the significance of quantum states has for the most part been carried on between Platonists and Kantians, who advocate an epistemic interpretation, with Aristotelians caught in the crossfire. For the latter, quantum states are neither states of Nature nor states of knowledge. The real issue is not the kind of reality that we should attribute to quantum states but the reality of the spatial and temporal distinctions that we make. Once this is recognized, the necessity of attributing ontological primacy to facts becomes obvious, the Platonic stance becomes inconsistent, and the Kantian point of view becomes unnecessarily restrictive and unilluminating.
This paper presents a definitive refutation of the recurring conjecture that the Ze framework constitutes a variant of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. Through a systematic, point-by-point analysis, we demonstrate that the two are radically orthogonal paradigms, separated by irreconcilable differences in their foundational principles. While both reject the notion of a fundamental wavefunction collapse, MWI responds by positing an ever-branching multiverse where all quantum possibilities are ontologically real. In stark contrast, the Ze framework, grounded in the principles of active inference and free energy minimization, preserves a single-world ontology. It reinterprets quantum superpositions as manifestations of unresolved epistemic model conflict within an adaptive system, and "measurement" as the physical process of forced localization, where a definite history crystallizes. The analysis conclusively distinguishes Ze from MWI across critical dimensions: the nature of alternatives (ontological worlds vs. epistemic models), the process of definiteness (subjective branching vs. objective optimization), the role of the observer (covert privilege vs. its elimination), and the capacity for empirical prediction. We conclude that Ze is not an interpretation of quantum formalism but a broader theory of how adaptive systems, from particles to brains, resolve uncertainty, thereby offering a monistic, parsimonious, and empirically grounded alternative to the inflationary ontology of the multiverse.
Abstract Modern physics contains celebrated foundational problems whose empirical foundations are exceptionally strong while some ontological narratives attached to them are less tightly constrained. This paper develops a local logic audit of individual inferential transitions from established empirical facts O and accepted formal constraints F to stronger physical or ontological conclusions P. Core Unit: A single inferential arrow: given O and F, does P follow? If (O AND F) does not entail P, P is not declared false; it is returned to the status of an additional premise. Methodology: Subtractive and prior to solution-building—before asking how a proposed process X occurs, the audit asks whether the declared O and F establish that X occurs at all. Adjudication: Once inputs are declared, adjudication is logical rather than interpretive. Factual primacy is epistemic rather than metaphysical: a formal derivation cannot supply its own empirical warrant, and a prediction must return to an independently acquired record before it can function as evidence. Domain-Specific Audits The method is applied through three domain-specific audits, with a transversal question-level audit operating within them rather than constituting a fourth domain: 1. The Double-Slit Experiment: Physical which-path interactions alter the relevant state without requiring any special causal role for conscious observation; sequential localized detections nevertheless accumulate into an interference distribution, while quantum-eraser protocols display conditioned correlations without retroactively changing an earlier local record. 2. Reflexive Born-Rule & Entanglement: Separates empirical success, formal derivation, and ontological explanation. The familiar question "what physically collapses the wavefunction?" is audited before it is answered: a formal state update does not by itself establish an ontic wavefunction undergoing a literal physical collapse. In entanglement, operational differentiation, spatial separation, and dynamical decoupling do not by themselves establish physical severance or exhaustive ontological decomposition; the same audit is applied to the EPR Reality Criterion and to narratives of nonlocal recoordination. Relativistic Physics & Quantum Gravity 3. Background Ontology: The third audit asks what background ontology quantum foundations actually require from relativistic physics. Clock relations and Lorentzian structure do not by itself entail time as an independently fundamental substance or four-dimensional spacetime as the uniquely fundamental ontology. Gravitational phenomena and the tested structure of general relativity likewise constrain any deeper account without uniquely fixing its ontology. The GPS Example: The distinction among ontology, physics, and engineering is made explicit through the GPS example: technological dependence on relativistic timing validates the physical relations required for operation while fundamental ontology remains a further question. Quantum-Gravity Audit: Asks what observation, prediction, or formal structure of established quantum theory presently fails in an empirically demonstrated way because gravity has not been made a fundamental quantum interaction, separating cross-framework consistency from prior commitment to one ontology of the deeper theory.