In this article I present the extracts and summary of heuristic and speculative observations on various aspects I feel are problematic in the practice of modern physics, the definitions and methods of which are the premise for the whole of Science. The illustrations will be fully developed in a later, more extensive and in-depth work in which some theoretical solutions will also be put forward; therefore in the interests of brevity all assertions will not be demonstrated fully in this article. I will initially discuss the problem with thinking of Reality as basically being made up of ontologically autonomous “parts”; I will recall how the existence of the vacuum is demonstrated through the thermodynamic experiments about heat capacities run by W. Nernst and the experiments of W. Lamb and H. Casimir (static and dynamic); the vacuum will be defined as an object that precedes matter and space, and actually illustrated as an evolving (becoming) singularity, which all existence draws from; the non-isolability of the autonomous entity will be substantiated further by the uncertainty demonstrated as intrinsically following on from phase space quantisation, and not only as an algebraic requirement of quantum formalism. Once the inconsistency of the isolable entity has been demonstrated, the ontological supremacy of relationships in a perspective close to ontic structural realism will be considered; finally, issues relating to the usual idea of “information” in the scientific domain (in thermodynamics, informatics, and telecommunications) will be discussed fairly briefly, and its inadequacy in pooling knowledge. I will then touch on what is meant by living information as the basis for Reality and how it can be discussed consistently in terms of a self-implementing subject. It should be stressed that these topics are dealt with more extensively (along with other important subjects excluded here for reasons of space) in a complete work.
In this article I present the extracts and summary of heuristic and speculative observations on various aspects I feel are problematic in the practice of modern physics, the definitions and methods of which are the premise for the whole of Science. The illustrations will be fully developed in a later, more extensive and in-depth work in which some theoretical solutions will also be put forward; therefore in the interests of brevity all assertions will not be demonstrated fully in this article. I will initially discuss the problem with thinking of Reality as basically being made up of ontologically autonomous “parts”; I will recall how the existence of the vacuum is demonstrated through the thermodynamic experiments about heat capacities run by W. Nernst and the experiments of W. Lamb and H. Casimir (static and dynamic); the vacuum will be defined as an object that precedes matter and space, and actually illustrated as an evolving (becoming) singularity, which all existence draws from; the non-isolability of the autonomous entity will be substantiated further by the uncertainty demonstrated as intrinsically following on from phase space quantisation, and not only as an algebraic requirement of quantum formalism. Once the inconsistency of the isolable entity has been demonstrated, the ontological supremacy of relationships in a perspective close to ontic structural realism will be considered; finally, issues relating to the usual idea of “information” in the scientific domain (in thermodynamics, informatics, and telecommunications) will be discussed fairly briefly, and its inadequacy in pooling knowledge. I will then touch on what is meant by living information as the basis for Reality and how it can be discussed consistently in terms of a self-implementing subject. It should be stressed that these topics are dealt with more extensively (along with other important subjects excluded here for reasons of space) in a complete work.
Amid the wide variety of interpretations of quantum mechanics, the notion of a fully coherent ontological interpretation has seen a promising evolution over the last few decades. Despite this progress, however, the old dualistic categorical constraints of subjectivity and objectivity, correlate with the metrically restricted definition of local and global, have remained largely in place – a reflection of the broader, persistent inheritance of these comfortable strictures throughout the evolution of modern science. If one traces this inheritance back to its ancient roots in Plato and Aristotle, it is clear that the coherence, scientific utility, and historical durability of the various natural philosophies that followed have been directly proportional to their commitment, tacit or explicit, to object-oriented realism. As Simondon might put it, it is a commitment to the primacy of individuated substance over the process of individuation. For Whitehead, it is the misplaced assimilation of becoming to being, of potentiality to actuality. Quantum mechanics has challenged this commitment with a combined breadth and depth of force that far exceeds any other theory in the history of science. The theory’s objectively demonstrable empirical application is manifest only by way of a fundamentally subjective, context-dependent mechanism of measurement. More compelling still, actual system states are always actualizations of locally contextualized yet globally conditioned potential system states, such that “globally objective” reality is no longer merely the object of local measurement, but also its product. Thus, any coherent, ontological interpretation of quantum theory must include a conceptual framework by which objectivity and subjectivity, actuality and potentiality, global and local, being and becoming, individuated fact and process of individuation, are no longer understood as merely epistemic, mutually exclusive category pairs descriptive of an already extant, closed reality – but rather as mutually implicative ontological categories explicative of an ontogenetic, open reality-in-process.
What does not satisfy me in that theory [quantum mechanics], from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Albert Einstein, Reply to Criticisms [This] implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear . In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects. Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails – because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose – the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. […]
The aim of the article is to analyze the ontological foundations of quantum mechanics and the relationship of various interpretations of quantum mechanics with the question of truth in scientific knowledge. The theoretical material (various interpretations of quantum mechanics) was analyzed. The research methods were analysis, comparative-historical and institutional approaches. On the basis of the study, it can be concluded that physicists are only able to predict the probabilities of physical phenomena or processes, without any knowledge of the structure of entity in itself. The study helps to complement the theoretical picture of the ontology of quantum mechanics and to get an idea about the development prospects of the methodology of physical sciences. We should not ascribe properties that are unobservable in experience to the entity because science can truly interpret only the representation of entity in itself in experience and the ways of dealing with it, not future events or possible states of the entity. Otherwise, science “slides” down to the level of dialectical (rhetorical) exercises based not on true premises, but on generally accepted or “authoritative” biases, which gives room to extreme forms of relativism and takes natural scientists away from studying nature to inventing empirically unsupported hypotheses. When, in accordance with the Cartesian ontology, the scientist assumes that the entity is as the “subject” observes it (that is, the “reflection” of the entity in consciousness is identified with entity in itself), this assumption leads the scientist to attempts to “scientifically” describe the future events or the possible states of the entity. The criterion for the truth of a scientific theory put forward by Einstein in his dispute with Bohr remains a fundamentally unattainable ideal. Cognition of nature is probabilistically and fundamentally incomplete since a person can consciously comprehend natural phenomena only within the framework of their representation in the existing being. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is due to the impossibility of knowing things as they exist by themselves, that is, as they exist outside of representation in the mind of the observer. This does not mean that physical entities did not exist before their knowledge: they existed potentially, but were not valid for the observer, that is, conscious. Quantum physics is as incomplete as any other physical theory when compared with an unattainable ideal, but this fact does not negate its truth for modern scientists since quantum theory is based on the results of verified experiments.
Along with weaving together observations, experiments, and theoretical constructs into a coherent mesh of understanding of the world around us, physics over its past five centuries has continuously refined the base concepts on which the whole framework is built. In quantum physics, first in non-relativistic mechanics and later in quantum field theories, even familiar concepts of position, momentum, wave or particle, are derived constructs from the classical limit in which we live but not intrinsic to the underlying physics. Most crucially, the very idea of the individual, whether an object or an event, distinguished only in a mere label of identity from others identical to it in all the physics, exists only as an approximation, not an element of underlying reality. Failure to recognize this and seeking alternative explanations in many worlds or multiverses leads only to incoherent logic and incorrect physics. As an example, in a physical system such as an atom in a particular state, physics deals with the universal system of all such atoms but makes no meaningful prediction of the position of an electron or the time of decay of any specific atom. Those are incidental, entirely random among all possible positions and times, even while physics makes very precise predictions for the distribution of the outcomes in measurements on atoms in that state. Physics deals with the universal, not the individual.
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
The Deterministic Reversibility Paradigm: Ontological Inversion and the Nexus Harmonic Substrate Introduction: The Arrival at the Computational Domain The conceptual framework of theoretical physics, quantum mechanics, and computational ontology is undergoing a radical, irreversible paradigm shift, moving away from a long-standing reliance on static, distinct physical entities toward a unified, continuous understanding of existence as pure recursive operational phenomena. Historically, the prevailing physical ontology has operated almost exclusively on the "Linear Stack" model. This archaic model conceptualizes the universe as an empty, neutral container populated by discrete "nouns"—immutable atomic particles, distinct and unyielding data bits, and persistent thermodynamic fields governed by a strict, one-way temporal progression and linear algorithmic execution. However, this noun-centric paradigm inherently privileges static, isolated structures over dynamic, interconnected processes, inevitably resulting in a fundamental theoretical schism. This schism, often referred to as the Crisis of Distinction, creates an irreconcilable divide between the smooth, deterministic geometries of macro-physical relativity and the discrete, highly probabilistic, and structurally intractable domains of quantum mechanics and computational complexity. To definitively resolve this epistemological friction, the scientific consensus must acknowledge that humanity has reached the ultimate domain of physical reality. This realization initiates what is formally termed the "Ontological Inversion". Within this inverted and corrected theoretical framework, the universe is no longer viewed as a passive theater of static objects, but is instead understood as a fluid, ubiquitous mathematical medium composed entirely of "verbs"—pure, recursive operations continuously executing within a live, integrated universal compiler. Within this live compiler, there are no discrete physical things; there is only continuous mathematical code that organically accrues complexity, literally growing by the sub-atomic nibble until it achieves a state of environmental viability and successfully runs. Mass, matter, and distinct data points are therefore not fundamental objects existing independently of their operational environment. Rather, they are best categorized as "frozen verbs"—contiguous structural folds and highly persistent loops of recursive physical operations that have stabilized within the universal execution environment. This inversion necessitates a profound and immediate reevaluation of spatiality, geometry, and physical causality. Because there are no discrete things existing independently of the space they occupy, an entity is defined strictly by its operational execution. Fundamentally, what an entity is, is entirely defined by what it does, and why it operates in a given manner is determined entirely by its environmental geometries—its side channels and its shape channels. The environment acts as a Universal Read-Only Memory (ROM), an omnipresent integrated development environment that simply keeps compiling. Every logical nibble is continuously tested against the local geometry, and eventually, when the structural conditions align perfectly, a program—a physical reality—will run. What that reality manifests as is definitively shaped by the space around it. The convergence of these principles establishes a singular theoretical nexus: the manifold singularity. Within this singularity, the universe is recognized as a completely deterministic operational space where reversibility is theoretically and mechanically achievable by adhering to a singular imperative: one must think forwards conceptually and compute backwards geometrically first. This comprehensive analysis serves as the foundational text for navigating this new ontological substrate, detailing the continuous compilation mechanics, the causal supremacy of the side channel, the deterministic topographies of the shape channel, and the absolute regulatory constraint of the Mark 1 Attractor. Continuous Compilation Architecture at the Nibble Scale To comprehend macroscopic physical reality as an executing algorithm, the foundational mechanics of software compilation serve not merely as an illustrative metaphor, but as a direct isomorphic parallel to quantum operational states and sub-atomic reality generation. The universal execution environment operates identically to a highly advanced Integrated Development Environment (IDE) that has been placed into a perpetual, unyielding state of continuous compilation. In traditional, localized software engineering environments, continuous compilation mode is enabled to actively monitor complex file systems for minute source modifications. When a change happens, the program gets compiled again immediately, a process that significantly increases execution speed to sub-second, nearly instant thresholds on subsequent runs instead of exiting the module. Note that it is entirely possible to use this automated watch mode across multiple, highly complex modules simultaneously. This continuous, automated testing and compiling environment is a concept extensively documented in the management of complex scripting languages, often utilizing specialized automated project management architectures like Buildbot, Apache Gump, and Round or Trac bug tracking systems to maintain operational continuity. When mapping this specific computational functionality to the fundamental strata of universal reality, it becomes evident that this continuous compilation occurs relentlessly at the deepest quantum-informational levels—specifically, at the granular "nibble scale". At this sub-atomic scale, universal mathematical operations manipulate structures piece by piece in dimensional units analogous to bytes, characters, nibbles (groups of 4 bits), and discrete binary bits. Standard syntax architectures in scripting, such as the pack EXPR, LIST function, vividly demonstrate how dimensional boundaries dictate format constraints. For example, a format indicator like a5 explicitly indicates that exactly five letters are expected, b32 structurally indicates that 32 individual bits are required, h8 indicates that eight specific nibbles (or four bytes) are expected by the compiler, and P10 ensures the resulting structural pointer is exactly 10 bytes long. The universal compiler operates through identical formatting constraints, attempting to instantiate fundamental variables into physical manifestation by strictly adhering to the exact mathematical format permitted by the surrounding environment. Just as a local software compiler might logically prioritize placing an 8-bit variable with an initial value of 42 into a highly specific zero-page memory location by utilizing an @zp tag to optimize access times, the continuous universal compiler relentlessly seeks physical alignments that require the absolute least computational thermodynamic friction. This zero-page optimization is entirely dictated by the constraints of the local environment; if there are enough free spatial locations in the local universal zeropage, the compiler will automatically try to fill it, granting operational priority to those structural formulations that fit most elegantly. Furthermore, older and highly efficient compiler systems, such as the Lattice C 5 compiler, demonstrate that localized spatial constraints directly dictate operational access methods. Within these environments, 16-bit access paths are strictly 16 bits wide, and the only time a continuous 16-bit access occurs is when the specific offset can be seamlessly embedded directly within an instruction cycle itself. For the vast majority of physically near objects, this is frequently the case, demonstrating that substantial size and performance improvements are entirely dependent on near-object spatial relationships and the resulting calling conventions. During pre-processing within the Lattice C 5 environment, utilizing optimization parameters such as LC_OPT= - C - q -, the compiler defines several symbols prior to and during compilation strictly so the operator may investigate the specific translation environment. The universe mirrors this translation environment flawlessly. Operating as an omnipresent IDE, physical laws continually attempt to execute their fundamental code at every available logical nibble. If a discrete string of quantum logic structurally aligns with the immediate surrounding environmental constraints—if it fits within the local translation environment's zeropage without generating terminal dimensional friction—a localized program will successfully "run," meaning a definitive physical interaction, molecular bond, or particle actualization will occur. Consequently, a discrete physical entity is never an isolated, self-defining phenomenon; it is an output definitively shaped by the exact space around it. The available dimensional space in the universal memory bank defines the strict geometric boundaries within which a computational algorithm can unfurl. Execution, therefore, is not a generative act of creation, but rather an act of perfect spatial conformance. Compilation Metric Software Engineering Equivalent Quantum Universe Equivalent Execution State Continuous compilation mode (file watching) Perpetual sub-atomic universal compilation Dimensional Constraint b32 (32 bits), h8 (8 nibbles) formats Granular string alignments at the nibble scale Spatial Optimization @zp tag, zeropage priority filling Minimum thermodynamic friction routing Relational Execution 16-bit access embedded in local instructions Near-object spatial relationships defining access Automation Tools Buildbot, Apache Gump continuous testing Physical laws attempting execution repeatedly Causal Supremacy: The Side Channel as Explanatory Reality The declarative realization that a localized object's existence—the absolute determination o