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

Synthese Library/Synthese library

Quantum Indeterminacy and Physical Reality as a Relevantly Predicationally Incomplete Existent Entity

Dale Jacquette

Published Jan 1, 2015• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-18075-5_16

Related papers

The stuff the world is made of: physics and reality

Diederik Aerts

Taking into account the results that we have been obtained during the last decade in the foundations of quantum mechanic we put forward a view on reality that we call the 'creation discovery view'. In this view it is made explicit that a measurement is an act of a macroscopic physical entity on a microphysical entity that entails the creation of new elements of reality as well as the detection of existing elements of reality. Within this view most of the quantum mechanical paradoxes are due to structural shortcomings of the standard quantum theory, which means that our analysis agrees with the claim made in the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper, namely that standards quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. This incompleteness is however not due to the absence of hidden variables but to the impossibility for standard quantum mechanics to describe separated quantum entities. Nonlocality appears as a genuine property of nature in our view and makes it necessary to reconsider the role of space in reality. Our proposal for a new interpretation for space makes it possible to put forward an new hypothesis for why it has not been possible to unify quantum mechanics and relativity theory.

arXiv:quant-ph/0107044•Jul 7, 2001•0 citations

QUANTUM THEORY AND THE PRINCIPLE OF INDETERMINACY

British Journal of Statistical Psychology•May 1, 1958•1 citation

Can We Have an Observer-Independent Description of Physical Reality?

Sunil Thakur

Classical physics assumes that the things exist independently of an act of observation; however, quantum theory suggests that the apparent form of quantum system emerges as a consequence of an act of observation. However, quantum theory is silent on the state of the systems prior to the act of observation. It assumes that the wavefunction collapses as a consequence of an act of observation but does not explain the mechanism of the collapse of wavefunction. Therefore, it is at least incomplete, if not incorrect. In this paper, we have shown that our understanding of the nature of physical reality is based on the false premise that we observe the physical entities, but the mechanism of perception is such that we can only perceive the information generated by the physical entities, not the physical entities. As per the current understanding of the process of perception, the brain projects the information it receives from the sense organs in the physical forms. Therefore, the entity that generates the information must preexist before it can be projected in the physical form. We do not perceive the actual Moon. The apparent form of the Moon is only a projection created by our brain. The apparent form is only a manifestation of something that generates information, but that cannot be observed directly. In the light of this observation, it becomes necessary to examine if we can establish causal relationships between events assuming that the place and time and events are observer independent. Apart from using the criterion prescribed by the EPR paper, we have also used these two methods to determine if we can have an observer independent description of reality. We have shown that an entity must have observer independent values of the physical quantities, but the act of measurement only reveals the observer dependent values of the physical quantities even in the macro world. We have confirmed our observations experimentally as well as through the observation of the natural phenomena.

•Apr 1, 2019•0 citations

The incompleteness of quantum physics

Euan J. Squires

Behavioral and Brain Sciences•Sep 1, 1993•0 citations

A Quantum View of “Free Existence” as Entangled Indeterminacy

d'Errico, Peter, Newcomb, Steven T

•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics as ACO Atomic Continuum Partial Closure Ontology

Philip Lilien

Quantum mechanics is empirically powerful but ontologically unsettled. Its formalism predicts with extraordinary precision, yet its dominant interpretations remain organized around four inherited pillars of illusion: indeterminacy, superposition, entanglement, and the observer problem. These are usually treated as separate mysteries. This report argues that they arise from one deeper misinterpretation: quantum mechanics describes the ACO partial-closure band, the regime in which coherence has entered measurable disclosure but has not yet completed classical closure. From this perspective, a quantum system is not a failed classical object, nor a mystical entity occupying contradictory realities. It is a partial-closure object. Indeterminacy appears because closure is incomplete. Superposition appears because multiple closure pathways remain unresolved. Entanglement appears because vector outcomes disclose from a prior bivector relation. The observer problem appears because physics has not defined the closure-selection function. This report reconstructs the four pillars of quantum illusion through ACO partial closure, coherence selection, and bivector relation. Quantum mechanics is not rejected; it is ontologically relocated. Its formalism is interpreted as the mathematics of partial-closure objecthood rather than as proof of ultimate randomness, literal multiplicity, spooky action, or magical collapse.

•Jun 3, 2026•0 citations
Taking into account the results that we have been obtained during the last decade in the foundations of quantum mechanic we put forward a view on reality that we call the 'creation discovery view'. In this view it is made explicit that a measurement is an act of a macroscopic physical entity on a microphysical entity that entails the creation of new elements of reality as well as the detection of existing elements of reality. Within this view most of the quantum mechanical paradoxes are due to structural shortcomings of the standard quantum theory, which means that our analysis agrees with the claim made in the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper, namely that standards quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. This incompleteness is however not due to the absence of hidden variables but to the impossibility for standard quantum mechanics to describe separated quantum entities. Nonlocality appears as a genuine property of nature in our view and makes it necessary to reconsider the role of space in reality. Our proposal for a new interpretation for space makes it possible to put forward an new hypothesis for why it has not been possible to unify quantum mechanics and relativity theory.
Classical physics assumes that the things exist independently of an act of observation; however, quantum theory suggests that the apparent form of quantum system emerges as a consequence of an act of observation. However, quantum theory is silent on the state of the systems prior to the act of observation. It assumes that the wavefunction collapses as a consequence of an act of observation but does not explain the mechanism of the collapse of wavefunction. Therefore, it is at least incomplete, if not incorrect. In this paper, we have shown that our understanding of the nature of physical reality is based on the false premise that we observe the physical entities, but the mechanism of perception is such that we can only perceive the information generated by the physical entities, not the physical entities. As per the current understanding of the process of perception, the brain projects the information it receives from the sense organs in the physical forms. Therefore, the entity that generates the information must preexist before it can be projected in the physical form. We do not perceive the actual Moon. The apparent form of the Moon is only a projection created by our brain. The apparent form is only a manifestation of something that generates information, but that cannot be observed directly. In the light of this observation, it becomes necessary to examine if we can establish causal relationships between events assuming that the place and time and events are observer independent. Apart from using the criterion prescribed by the EPR paper, we have also used these two methods to determine if we can have an observer independent description of reality. We have shown that an entity must have observer independent values of the physical quantities, but the act of measurement only reveals the observer dependent values of the physical quantities even in the macro world. We have confirmed our observations experimentally as well as through the observation of the natural phenomena.
Quantum mechanics is empirically powerful but ontologically unsettled. Its formalism predicts with extraordinary precision, yet its dominant interpretations remain organized around four inherited pillars of illusion: indeterminacy, superposition, entanglement, and the observer problem. These are usually treated as separate mysteries. This report argues that they arise from one deeper misinterpretation: quantum mechanics describes the ACO partial-closure band, the regime in which coherence has entered measurable disclosure but has not yet completed classical closure. From this perspective, a quantum system is not a failed classical object, nor a mystical entity occupying contradictory realities. It is a partial-closure object. Indeterminacy appears because closure is incomplete. Superposition appears because multiple closure pathways remain unresolved. Entanglement appears because vector outcomes disclose from a prior bivector relation. The observer problem appears because physics has not defined the closure-selection function. This report reconstructs the four pillars of quantum illusion through ACO partial closure, coherence selection, and bivector relation. Quantum mechanics is not rejected; it is ontologically relocated. Its formalism is interpreted as the mathematics of partial-closure objecthood rather than as proof of ultimate randomness, literal multiplicity, spooky action, or magical collapse.