Motivated by reductionism's current inability to encompass the quantum theory we explore an indivisible and dynamical wholeness as an underlying foundation for physics. After reviewing the role of wholeness in the quantum theory we set a philosophical background aiming at introducing an ontology, based on a dynamical wholeness. Equipped with the philosophical background we then propose a mathematical realization by representing the dynamics with a non-trivial elementary embedding from the mathematical universe to itself. By letting the embedding interact with itself through application we obtain a left-distributive universal algebra that is isomorphic to special braids. Via the connection between braids and quantum and statistical physics we show that a the mathematical structure obtained from wholeness yields known physics in a special case. In particular we point out the connections to algebras of observables, spin networks, and statistical mechanical models used in solid state physics, such as the Potts model. Furthermore we discuss the general case and there the possibility of interpreting the mathematical structure as a dynamics beyond unitary evolution, where entropy increase is involved.
Motivated by reductionism's current inability to encompass the quantum theory we explore an indivisible and dynamical wholeness as an underlying foundation for physics. After reviewing the role of wholeness in the quantum theory we set a philosophical background aiming at introducing an ontology, based on a dynamical wholeness. Equipped with the philosophical background we then propose a mathematical realization by representing the dynamics with a non-trivial elementary embedding from the mathematical universe to itself. By letting the embedding interact with itself through application we obtain a left-distributive universal algebra that is isomorphic to special braids. Via the connection between braids and quantum and statistical physics we show that a the mathematical structure obtained from wholeness yields known physics in a special case. In particular we point out the connections to algebras of observables, spin networks, and statistical mechanical models used in solid state physics, such as the Potts model. Furthermore we discuss the general case and there the possibility of interpreting the mathematical structure as a dynamics beyond unitary evolution, where entropy increase is involved.
The Super-Humean strategy is a purely philosophical one: in a nutshell, on this strategy, there is a relationalist ontology, but a non-relationalist physical theory. When it comes to quantum mechanics, a discussion of ontology makes sense only if one spells out to which version of the quantum mechanics one is committed—that is, how one solves the measurement problem. The quantum theory going back to de Broglie and D. Bohm is the most prominent of them. It is based on a primitive ontology of permanent point particles as in the classical mechanics. The dynamical structure that a physical theory introduces is in any case defined for the universe as a whole. For instance, as soon as there are dynamical parameters whose value is conserved throughout the universe—such as the total energy—there are global correlations in the motions of the matter points.
Quantum field theory (QFT) can be analyzed in terms of its mathematical structure, its conceptual system for physical descriptions, or its basic ontology. The analysis can be done logically or historically. In this chapter, only the genesis of the conceptual foundations of QFT relevant to its basic ontology will be treated; no discussion of its mathematical structures or its epistemological underpinnings will be given. Some conceptual problems, such as those related to probability and measurement, will be discussed, but only because of their relevance to the basic ontology of QFT, rather than their intrinsic philosophical interest. Here, by basic ontology I mean the irreducible entities that QFT is invented to describe. The often mentioned candidates for the basic ontology of QFT, in fact of the physical world, are the discrete particle and the continuous field. Another possible candidate (the spacetime point) has also been suggested recently (Redhead, 1983). Since the aim of this chapter is to analyze the historical process in which the conceptual foundations of QFT were laid down, rather than the logical structure of QFT which philosophers of the present day treat, no discussion of the last possibility will be given. The content of this chapter involves the formation and interpretation, in a roughly chronological order, of the concepts of the wave function, quantization, quantization of the field, the vacuum, interactions between fields, and renormalization. The first two topics will be discussed in relation to the quantization of the field, with their role being taken as the starting point of the conceptual development of QFT.
This article is the first part of a three-part series developing Ontological Field Theory (OFT), a unified framework grounding quantum mechanics in foundational ontological principles. The trilogy is structured as follows: Part I — Conceptual Necessity:Why Quantum Mechanics Is Inevitable: Ontological Continuity and the Necessity of Quantum Dynamics establishes that quantum mechanics follows necessarily from minimal requirements on coherent being, independently of specific physical postulates. Part II — Technical Realization:Derivation of the Schrödinger Equation from Ontological Field Theory provides the explicit field-theoretic derivation showing how the Schrödinger equation emerges as the non-relativistic limit of a covariant ontological field. Part III — Critical Context:Why Classical Physics Is an Approximation: Decoherence, Coarse-Graining, and the Limits of Determinism explains why classical determinism and trajectories arise only as emergent, approximate descriptions of fundamentally quantum and relational dynamics. Each article is logically self-contained, but the full argument is distributed across the three contributions. The conceptual analysis motivates the mathematics; the mathematics grounds the physics; and the critical examination situates classical intuition as a limiting case rather than a foundation. The papers are intended to be read as a coherent whole. We argue that quantum mechanics is not an arbitrary empirical framework but an inevitable consequence of minimal ontological requirements. Assuming only that being must exist necessarily, remain consistent, be relational, and admit self-reference, we show that classical deterministic physics is structurally insufficient. Quantum dynamics emerges as the unique low-energy realization of coherent ontological continuity. This work complements explicit field-theoretic derivations by clarifying why quantum mechanics could not have been otherwise.
Since its inception, the intricate mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics has empowered physicists to describe and predict specific physical events known as quantum processes. However, this success in probabilistic predictions has been accompanied by a profound challenge in the ontological interpretation of the theory. This interpretative complexity stems from two key aspects. Firstly, quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory that, so far, is not derivable from any more basic scientific theory. Secondly, it delves into a realm of invisible phenomena that often contradicts our intuitive and commonsensical notions of matter and causality. Despite its notorious difficulties of interpretation, the most widely accepted set of views of quantum phenomena has been known as the Copenhagen interpretation since the beginning of quantum mechanics. According to these views, the correct ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics is incompatible with ontological realism in general and with philosophical materialism in particular. Anti-realist and anti-materialist interpretations of quantum matter have survived until today. This paper discusses these perspectives, arguing that materialistic interpretations of quantum mechanics are compatible with its mathematical formalism, while anti-realist and anti-materialist views are based on wrong philosophical assumptions. However, although physicalism provides a better explanation for quantum phenomena than idealism, its downward reductionism prevents it from accounting for more complex forms of matter, such as biological or sociocultural systems. Thus, the paper argues that neither physicalism nor idealism can explain the universe. I propose then a non-reductionistic form of materialism called inclusive materialism. The conclusion is that the acknowledgment of the qualitative irreducibility of ontological emergent levels above the purely physical one does not deny philosophical materialism but enriches it.
This article is the second part of a three-paper sequence developing Ontological Field Theory (OFT) as a unified framework grounding quantum mechanics in foundational ontological principles. The trilogy is structured as follows: Part I — Conceptual Necessity:Why Quantum Mechanics Is Inevitable: Ontological Continuity and the Necessity of Quantum Dynamics establishes that quantum mechanics follows necessarily from minimal requirements on coherent being, independently of specific physical postulates. Part II — Technical Realization:Derivation of the Schrödinger Equation from Ontological Field Theory provides the explicit field-theoretic derivation showing how the Schrödinger equation emerges as the non-relativistic limit of a covariant ontological field. Part III — Critical Context:Why Classical Physics Is an Approximation: Decoherence, Coarse-Graining, and the Limits of Determinism explains why classical determinism and trajectories arise only as emergent, approximate descriptions of fundamentally quantum and relational dynamics. Each article is logically self-contained, but the full argument is distributed across the three contributions. The conceptual analysis motivates the mathematics; the mathematics grounds the physics; and the critical examination situates classical intuition as a limiting case rather than a foundation. The papers are intended to be read as a coherent whole. We argue that quantum mechanics is not an arbitrary empirical framework but an inevitable consequence of minimal ontological requirements. Assuming only that being must exist necessarily, remain consistent, be relational, and admit self-reference, we show that classical deterministic physics is structurally insufficient. Quantum dynamics emerges as the unique low-energy realization of coherent ontological continuity. This work complements explicit field-theoretic derivations by clarifying why quantum mechanics could not have been otherwise.
This work proposes a novel conceptual framework for the foundations of physics, based on the idea that physical reality emerges from a discrete causal network of events and the accumulation of "memory" associated with these interactions. Unlike standard approaches, spacetime and elementary particles are not presupposed but emerge dynamically. The theory reinterprets General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as manifestations of this memory dynamic in different density regimes. Concepts such as quantum collapse, the arrow of time, and particle properties are derived within this causal ontology. The work explores the consequences of applying the Heideggerian philosophical concept of historicity to the foundations of physics. Detailed appendices provide the mathematical formalization and emergent derivations.