Zero Subjectivity Physics presents a foundations-level framework that removes subjectivity from the base ontology of physical theory while preserving the full operational role of observation. Modern physics successfully predicts what systems do, yet foundational discussions often reintroduce subjectivity—explicitly or implicitly—through observer primacy, awareness, or experiential assumptions. This paper argues that such moves are unnecessary and stem from an inherited anthropomorphic interpretation of observation rather than from physical necessity. In this framework, observation is treated as an operational regime: a physically instantiated pattern of constrained dynamics and information flow that can arise wherever certain stability, memory, self-reference, and latency conditions are satisfied. Observation is not owned by a subject, localized at a privileged vantage point, or endowed with intrinsic awareness. Like light, it is defined entirely by what it does, not by what it is. Duality and non-duality are reframed as observer-dependent descriptive modes applied to the same underlying physical processes, rather than as competing ontologies. Subjectivity, if it arises at all, is treated as a higher-level organizational feature of certain systems, not as a primitive ingredient of physical law. The framework is compatible with classical mechanics, relativity, quantum theory, decoherence-based measurement theory, and operational or relational approaches, while taking a stronger stance against any foundational role for subjectivity. By enforcing zero subjectivity at the base level, the paper clarifies the physics–philosophy boundary, dissolves persistent observer paradoxes, and constrains consciousness-first interpretations without denying the reality of observers as physical systems.
Zero Subjectivity Physics presents a foundations-level framework that removes subjectivity from the base ontology of physical theory while preserving the full operational role of observation. Modern physics successfully predicts what systems do, yet foundational discussions often reintroduce subjectivity—explicitly or implicitly—through observer primacy, awareness, or experiential assumptions. This paper argues that such moves are unnecessary and stem from an inherited anthropomorphic interpretation of observation rather than from physical necessity. In this framework, observation is treated as an operational regime: a physically instantiated pattern of constrained dynamics and information flow that can arise wherever certain stability, memory, self-reference, and latency conditions are satisfied. Observation is not owned by a subject, localized at a privileged vantage point, or endowed with intrinsic awareness. Like light, it is defined entirely by what it does, not by what it is. Duality and non-duality are reframed as observer-dependent descriptive modes applied to the same underlying physical processes, rather than as competing ontologies. Subjectivity, if it arises at all, is treated as a higher-level organizational feature of certain systems, not as a primitive ingredient of physical law. The framework is compatible with classical mechanics, relativity, quantum theory, decoherence-based measurement theory, and operational or relational approaches, while taking a stronger stance against any foundational role for subjectivity. By enforcing zero subjectivity at the base level, the paper clarifies the physics–philosophy boundary, dissolves persistent observer paradoxes, and constrains consciousness-first interpretations without denying the reality of observers as physical systems.
Modern physics has achieved extraordinary predictive success, yet it continues to face unresolved conceptual tensions concerning the role of the observer, the nature of information, and the origin of physical structure. From quantum measurement to cosmology, the assumption of an observer-neutral reality increasingly appears insufficient to fully account for empirical phenomena and theoretical inconsistencies. This manifesto proposes an Informational Observer-Centered Framework, in which information is treated as a fundamental ontological substrate and observation as an active, structured process rather than a passive act of measurement. Within this perspective, physical systems, observers, and informational exchanges form a unified dynamics, where state reduction, decoherence, and emergent classicality arise from informational interactions and constraints. Rather than introducing a new closed theory, this manifesto establishes a conceptual foundation unifying several complementary models—including Informational State Dynamics, observer-dependent informational compression, and informational interpretations of quantum and cosmological phenomena—into a coherent research program. The framework is explicitly non-dogmatic, open to falsification, and intended as a guiding structure for further theoretical development and empirical testing. The aim of this document is not to replace existing physical theories, but to clarify their conceptual boundaries and propose an integrative lens through which unresolved problems in quantum foundations, cosmology, and cognitive systems may be systematically explored.
This paper introduces Axiom 0, a minimal foundational principle for physical reality: the impossibility of any globally closed description of the total correlational structure. Rather than postulating space, time, dynamics, locality, or physical laws as primitive, the framework assumes only: (i) the existence of a correlational structure, (ii) the structural impossibility of complete self-closure, and (iii) consistency under partial comparison. From these ingredients, the paper shows how: physical laws emerge as stabilizing regularities of incomplete descriptions, time, dynamics, and geometry arise as effective, regime-dependent structures, irreversibility follows from projection and information loss, and why no description can be both exact and globally complete. Non-closure is treated as an ontological constraint, not as epistemic ignorance or observer dependence. Physical reality exists precisely because complete closure is impossible, independently of observation or modeling. The paper does not attempt to replace existing physical theories or derive numerical constants. Instead, it provides a structural foundation within which effective physical theories (quantum, classical, relativistic, and open-system regimes) can be consistently understood as emergent and domain-limited. This work is intended as a conceptual and structural foundation for correlational and relational approaches to fundamental physics, clarifying the origin of laws, dynamics, and physical regularity without invoking additional ontological postulates.
Quantum mechanics is among the most successful mathematical frameworks in modern science, providing precise predictions, experimental validation, and wide-ranging technological applications. This success, however, has been accompanied by a long-standing suspension of a fundamental question: the ontological status of quantum itself. While dominant approaches emphasize how quantum phenomena behave, the question of what these behaviors are the behavior of has largely been deferred. This work does not propose a new physical theory, nor does it challenge the empirical or mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Instead, it offers an ontological positioning that reintroduces the question of ground. Quantum is approached neither as a discrete object nor as a purely mathematical formalism, but as the joint mode of operation of energy, nature, and consciousness. Within this framework, consciousness is not treated as an external causal agent acting upon physical systems, but as an immanent, organizing, and meaning-generating aspect of energetic continuity. Differentiation is thus located not in nature itself, but at the level of meaning. Observation and measurement are reinterpreted accordingly, not as mechanisms of physical collapse, but as processes through which ontological distinctions become articulated. By reframing quantum as a ground rather than a thing, this study aims to clarify persistent conceptual tensions—such as the observer problem and the status of measurement—without invoking speculative physics or metaphysical dualism. The paper presents not a solution, but a repositioning: an invitation to reconsider the ontological assumptions that guide contemporary readings of quantum mechanics.
Quantum measurement is widely regarded as paradoxical due to the apparent role of observers, wave function collapse, and mutually inconsistent descriptions of reality. We argue that these paradoxes are not intrinsic to quantum mechanics, but arise from a category error: treating observer-dependent inferences as observer-independent physical facts.We introduce a causality-first framework in which quantum states represent open causal structures, and measurement corresponds to a scale-dependent transition to causal closure. No privileged observer, stochastic collapse mechanism, or many-worlds ontology is required. Within this framework, celebrated paradoxes such as Wigner’s Friend and the Frauchiger–Renner no-go theorem dissolve, as their contradictions rely on an implicit violation of causal consistency.Our proposal does not modify quantum dynamics nor introduce new postulates. Instead, it clarifies when quantum processes may enter causal chains. The result is a realist, observer-independent account of measurement that preserves standard quantum theory while eliminating its most persistent conceptual pathologies.
This monograph develops and defends Experiential Structural Ontology (ESO), a metaphysical framework constrained by contemporary physics. The framework begins from a tension in contemporary physics: quantum theory replaces classical objecthood with nonseparable relational structure, and several approaches to quantum gravity reconstruct spacetime from deeper organisational relations. Structural realism captures this shift in physical description, yet it leaves open how such structure exists as a concrete world. ESO proposes that experiential manifestation provides a minimal ontological ground capable of rendering relational structure determinate as concrete occurrence. Experience is not introduced as a psychological posit. It names the mode in which relational organisation is present as determinate occurrence. Consciousness, understood as experiential manifestation, is primitive in this limited sense. Physical reality is interpreted as stable constraint architecture enacted within experiential occurrence. The framework draws its constraints from experimentally established quantum nonseparability and decoherence together with research programmes that model spacetime as emergent from deeper relational organisation. These constraints are used to assess leading foundational positions. Several leading positions preserve relational description yet do not fully account for the transition from formal structure to concrete manifestation. ESO proposes that this instantiation deficit can be addressed without appeal to hidden substrates, quiddities, or additional primitive laws. Within this account, physical laws function as stability constraints on experiential transition. Objects and spacetime are interpreted as dynamically stabilised organisational structures, and subjects as individuated streams of integrated experiential organisation. The hard problem of consciousness is recast as a question concerning the organisation of experiential structure under physical constraint. ESO develops the relational commitments of structural realism within an explicit ontological framework that addresses the grounding demands imposed by contemporary physics while retaining full empirical discipline.
This paper describes the temporal nature of reality as a manifestation of a determinate, relational state from an observer’s temporal interaction with naturally constrained systems. This conceptual framework depends on the critical distinction between natural existence that does not depend upon an observer, and a determinate reality for an observer that is instantiated only through a qualifying interaction. For any observer O at time t, this relation is expressed schematically as IO(t) + PO(t) --> RO(t), where R is the reality instantiated for the observer, I is the interaction of the observer with naturally constrained systems, P the observer's presently instantiated physical and mental state. At this stage, this relationship is presented as a foundational schema rather than as a completed mathematical or computational formalism. By defining an observer in physical and functional terms, this framework de-anthropomorphizes the concept of observation. A minimal observer could be a simple sensor or other physical system in which environmental interaction produces a causally differentiated state, independent of consciousness, semantic interpretation, memory, or experience. More complex observers introduce additional capacities for retention, processing, interpretation, and experience, allowing continuity between successive realities through presently instantiated physical consequences of prior interactions. The framework further distinguishes observer-relative reality from objective correctness. While different observers may instantiate divergent realities based on physical variances, interactions and instantiated states, natural laws prevent these states from becoming arbitrary. Observers do not create natural laws, and subjective or algorithmic convergence can arise through reproducible interaction, shared physical constraints, and causal information propagation. In this sense, this framework provides a basis for algorithmic objectivity without requiring a single observer-independent representation of reality.