A logical physical ontology is code theory, wherein reality is neither deterministic nor random. In light of Conway and Kochen’s free will theorem [The free will theorem, Found. Phys. 36(10) (2006) 1441–1473] and strong free will theorem [The strong free will theorem, Not. Am. Math. Soc. 56(2) (2009) 226–232], we discuss the plausibility of a third axiomatic option — geometric language; the code-theoretic axiom. We suggest that freewill choices at the syntactically-free steps of a geometric language of spacetime form the code-theoretic substrate upon which particle and gravitational physics emerge.
A logical physical ontology is code theory, wherein reality is neither deterministic nor random. In light of Conway and Kochen’s free will theorem [The free will theorem, Found. Phys. 36(10) (2006) 1441–1473] and strong free will theorem [The strong free will theorem, Not. Am. Math. Soc. 56(2) (2009) 226–232], we discuss the plausibility of a third axiomatic option — geometric language; the code-theoretic axiom. We suggest that freewill choices at the syntactically-free steps of a geometric language of spacetime form the code-theoretic substrate upon which particle and gravitational physics emerge.
Quantum Mechanics has taught us a lesson that goes well beyond a set of new physical laws. It has provided us with genuine “theorems of epistemology”. We now know that there are situations when the observation of the world cannot be considered as the mere reading of a reality pre-existing the observation, whereas there are circumstances where the knowledge of the whole do not corresponds to the knowledge of the parts (holism). We know that there are incompatible properties that are complementary. We know that there exist properties of the whole that are incompatible with any property of each part. The notion of “object” defined in terms of its “properties ” is in contrast with its mereologic connotation according to which objects can be composed to form new objects. The particle ontology as localizable unity is in contrast with the Malament theorem in quantum field theory. To the above add the fact that the two more general fundamental theories in physics – the quantum theory of fields and the general relativity of Einstein – are logically incompatible. In order to reconcile the logical coherence of the observations with their theoretical explanation we need a radical change of paradigm. The solution here proposed is to abandon the vision of the world as a “mechanism” and to substitute it with that of “algorithm”. This is the paradigm of the “universe as a huge computer” that have been latent within the community since Richard Feynman, and nowadays is resurrecting in physics, showing its full theoretical power. In the new algorithmic vision the “mechanics” becomes an emergent phenomenology. Without the need of physical primitive, the new “informational” program allows us to found physics on solid axiomatic grounds. The quantum theory of abstract systems along with the free quantum field theory are derived from information-theoretic axioms. The axioms of quantum theory all have an epistemological connotation, and pertain the possibility of falsifying the propositions of the theory. They reconnect holism with reductionism, probabilism and falsifiability, substituting the notion of “object” with that of “system” and of “event”, and logically implying the theorem of quantum theory without the need of using the abstract Hilbert-spaces toolkit. The free quantum field theory (Weyl, Dirac e Maxwell) is obtained by adding axioms of minimization of algorithmic complexity. The informational framework well separates the notions of “experiment”and “theory”: the theory connects input with output, the experiment being identified with the collection of input, output, and objective intermediate events. The objective reality (experiment) is made of “icons” with which we interact: the theory is the underlying algorithm. The paradigm describes the tapestry of reality as pure software, “software”. “Software without hardware”: the dematerialization of physics. “Reality without realism” means pure logical coherentism.
Although the concept of an observing device with memory is very simple and definable in terms of algorithmic machine, it is not compatible with a predictive theory involving this concept. This is sufficient to show that Physics as a whole cannot be deterministic; moreover, using the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem [1] and the simple logical proof of it we gave in [2], we show, without any need of free will or observer's freedom, that neither Quantum Mechanics nor any extension of this theory can be deterministic.
Abstract This paper records a structural result: under the CODES / SO2 axioms, probability cannot be ontological. If evolution from the full state is deterministic—i.e., a function—then genuine stochastic branching from identical states is logically excluded. Probability survives only as a measurement, compression, or ignorance language over a deterministic, PAS_h–ordered substrate. This elimination is not an additional hypothesis or interpretive stance; it is a direct corollary of deterministic causation plus the choice of full state space.
This volume is the foundational and mathematical entry point of the global-realism theory tower. Exactly three physical axioms are retained: microscopic ontic definiteness with finite localization, physical reality of a dynamical spacetime–vacuum substrate, and persistent causal retarded source–response coupling. Wave functions, Hilbert and Fock spaces, Born probabilities, gauge groups, Einstein equations, entropy, temperature, particle species, chemical bonds, life, information, and complexity are not additional physical axioms. They enter only as representations, conditional theorems, controlled limits, effective models, computations, observations, or downstream organizational levels. The volume establishes a many-sorted formal language, an anti-confusion type discipline, a theory-layer category, conservative import maps, an acyclic dependency graph, state and parameter certificates, and universal uncertainty and rejection rules. Later parts connect this common spine to finite topological matter, causal historical dynamics, gravitation, quantum representation, statistical reduction, macroscopic projection, observation, and the specialized physics, chemistry, biology, Earth-system, astronomical, and complex-system volumes. These interfaces authorize downstream inputs but do not replace the full calculations owned by those volumes. All nonstandard claims remain conditional on existence, stability, causal realization, independent calibration, standard-theory subtraction, and held-out tests. The purpose is internal architectural closure and empirical accountability, not a claim that three axioms already compute every law or that nature has been shown to realize the proposed history and finite-core sectors. Keywords **Global realism; three physical axioms; finite topological matter; physical spacetime vacuum; causal historical dynamics; quantum representation; gravitation; statistical reduction; acyclic theory tower; uncertainty quantification; falsifiability.** Note on the Two Versions **This paper is available in two versions. Readers interested in the original ideas and the development of the manuscript are encouraged to consult the original version. For a more systematic presentation and a deeper understanding of the complete theoretical framework, we recommend reading both versions.**
This work proposes a minimal ontological framework for physical reality grounded in the principle of structural distinguishability. The foundational axiom is the non-zero distinguishability of states, from which constraints, fixation, temporal directionality, spatial structure, and stability conditions of physical configurations are systematically derived. Space is interpreted as a structure of compatibility between alternatives, while time is understood as an ordering of fixation events. The geometrization of physics is treated as a secondary descriptive language of stable regimes of distinguishability. The limits and applicability of geometric representation are analyzed in relation to quantum mechanics and gravitation. The framework does not introduce new physical equations but aims to provide an ontological reconciliation of existing formalisms in quantum theory and general relativity. The work is conceptual and structural in nature and is intended for researchers in philosophy of physics and foundations of theoretical physics.
If the concept of “free will” is reduced to that of “choice” all physical world share the latter quality. Anyway the “free will” can be distinguished from the “choice”: The “free will” involves implicitly certain preliminary goal, and the choice is only the mean, by which it can be achieved or not by the one who determines the goal. Thus, for example, an electron has always a choice but not free will unlike a human possessing both. Consequently, and paradoxically, the determinism of classical physics is more subjective and more anthropomorphic than the indeterminism of quantum mechanics for the former presupposes certain deterministic goal implicitly following the model of human freewill behavior.The choice is usually linked to very complicated systems such as human brain or society and even often associated with consciousness. In its background, the material world is deterministic and absolutely devoid of choice. However, quantum mechanics introduces the choice in the fundament of physical world, in the only way, in which it can exist: All exists in the “phase transition” of the present between the uncertain future and the well-ordered past. Thus the present is forced to choose in order to be able to transform the coherent state of future into the well-ordering of past. The concept of choice as if suggests that there is one who chooses. However quantum mechanics involves a generalized case of choice, which can be called “subjectless”: There is certain choice, which originates from the transition of the future into the past. Thus that kind of choice is shared of all existing and does not need any subject: It can be considered as a low of nature.There are a few theorems in quantum mechanics directly relevant to the topic: two of them are called “free will theorems” by their authors, Conway and Kochen, and according to them: “Do we really have free will, or, as a few determined folk maintain, is it all an illusion? We don’t know, but will prove in this paper that if indeed there exist any experimenters with a modicum of free will, then elementary particles must have their own share of this valuable commodity” “The import of the free will theorem is that it is not only current quantum theory, but the world itself that is non-deterministic, so that no future theory can return us to a clockwork universe”.Those theorems can be considered as a continuation of the so-called theorems about the absence of “hidden variables” in quantum mechanics.