The discovery of quantum discontinuity at the limit of empirical observation reveals that the most basic features of reality may not be causally determined but instead emerge from a non-causal basis. The traditional a priori application of first principles has long stood in the way of this possibility. Once this inherited assumption is suspended, it becomes evident that the classical framework is both unsustainable and circular: it presupposes the very continuity it seeks to ground. Recognising this invites a reassessment of how intelligibility itself arises, pointing toward an ontic foundation in which causality emerges from non-causality as the starting point for being itself. This relation manifests ontologically in experience as the complementarity of discontinuity and continuity, grounding philosophical explanation.
The discovery of quantum discontinuity at the limit of empirical observation reveals that the most basic features of reality may not be causally determined but instead emerge from a non-causal basis. The traditional a priori application of first principles has long stood in the way of this possibility. Once this inherited assumption is suspended, it becomes evident that the classical framework is both unsustainable and circular: it presupposes the very continuity it seeks to ground. Recognising this invites a reassessment of how intelligibility itself arises, pointing toward an ontic foundation in which causality emerges from non-causality as the starting point for being itself. This relation manifests ontologically in experience as the complementarity of discontinuity and continuity, grounding philosophical explanation.
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.
This work presents a rigorous derivation of quantum mechanics from purely a priori ontological principles, a result not previously achieved within a single self-contained framework. Beginning with the apodictically certain proposition "I am"—immune to all doubt through performative contradiction—we establish through necessary deduction the Principle of Ontological Continuity (POC): Being is continuous and cannot cease or arise ex nihilo. From this single ontological foundation, the complete mathematical structure of quantum mechanics emerges as necessary consequence. We demonstrate that any mathematical representation of ontological continuity must have Hilbert space structure, that ontological conservation necessarily implies unitary evolution, and that the Schrödinger equation follows via Stone's theorem as mathematical necessity, not empirical postulate. The Born rule is derived through three independent converging arguments (Gleason's theorem, direct conservation requirements, and Zurek's envariance), establishing quantum probability as ontological necessity rather than interpretative supplement. Classical foundational problems—wave function collapse, the measurement problem, Bell's non-locality—are resolved without additional assumptions. Collapse emerges as effective description of decoherence; the observer is reconceptualized as self-aware subsystem without ontological dualism; Bell violations confirm ontological unity rather than presenting paradox. Quantum phenomena—superposition as ontological potentiality, tunneling as manifestation of continuity, Pauli exclusion as consequence of ontological structure—are shown to be necessary rather than mysterious. The work establishes quantum mechanics with apodictic certainty mediated through deductive necessity, demonstrating that quantum reality could not have been otherwise. This monograph integrates foundational ontology, mathematical formalism, and resolution of interpretative problems within unified self-contained framework. It deliberately closes at non-relativistic quantum mechanics, establishing stable foundation for future extensions (quantum field theory, general relativity, quantum gravity, normative ethics).
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.
For Kant causality is an a priori category of the understanding, a necessary condition for the possibility of any experience. Later Wittgenstein’s philosophy rejects transcendentalism. We can only speak of causes and effects if in some basic situations, or ‘language games’, we already treat some things as causes of what happens. Since the notion of cause becomes meaningful only within a language game, it is not unambiguous. Quantum causal language games presuppose the use of quantum theory. We treat the latter as Wittgenstein’s grammar of a quantum form of life’, or rule (norm), anchored in its applications — quantum phenomena as language games. Quantum correlations are often interpreted as a manifestation of the nonlocality of quantum mechanics. This is a view of quantum phenomena from the perspective of classical physics. Our contextual point of view rejects the nonlocality of quantum theory in the sense of instantaneous causal influence at a distance. But it does not admit its locality in the sense of classical causality either. We introduce the notion of quantum causality which allows us to treat quantum correlations as local, but context-dependent. Their formal cause is an entangled wave function. Any particular quantum correlation, identifiable in a context of its observation as a result of the wave function reduction, post factum can be treated as a classical causal correlation. From the point of view of the proposed contextual quantum realism, epistemology is secondary, and ontology is sensitive to context. Quantum correlations exist (are real) before application of the theory, independently of their identification (description, measurement), but have no identity, which appears only as a result of application of the theory and their identification in the context. In other words, they are real, but not pre-determined, not autonomous.
Quantum theory describes our universe incredibly successfully. To our classically-inclined brains, however, it is a bizarre description that requires a reimagining of what fundamental reality, or “ontology”, could look like. This thesis examines different ontological features in light of the success of quantum theory, what it requires, and what it rules out. While these investigations are primarily foundational, they also have relevance to quantum information, quantum communication, and experiments on quantum systems. The way that quantum theory describes the state of a system is one of its most unintuitive features. It is natural, therefore, to ask whether a similarly strange description of states is required on an ontological level. This thesis proves that almost all quantum superposition states for d > 3 dimensions must be real—that is, present in the ontology in a well-defined sense. This is a strong requirement which prevents intuitive explanations of the many quantum phenomena which are based on superpositions. A new theorem is also presented showing that quantum theory is incompatible with macro-realist ontologies, where certain physical quantities must always have definite values. This improves on the Leggett-Garg argument, which also aims to prove incompatibility with macro-realism but contains loopholes. Variations on both of these results that are error-tolerant (and therefore amenable to experimentation) are presented, as well as numerous related theorems showing that the ontology of quantum states must be somewhat similar to the quantum states themselves in various specific ways. Extending these same methods to quantum communication, a simple proof is found showing that an exponential number of classical bits are required to communicate a linear number of qubits. That is, classical systems are exponentially bad at storing quantum data. Causal influences are another part of ontology where quantum theory demands a revision of our classical notions. This follows from the outcomes of Bell experiments, as rigorously shown in recent analyses. Here, the task of constructing a native quantum framework for reasoning about causal influences is tackled. This is done by first analysing the simple example of a common cause, from which a quantum version of Reichenbach’s principle is identified. This quantum principle relies on an identification of quantum conditional independence which can be defined in four ways, each naturally generalising a corresponding definition for classical conditional independence. Not only does this allow one to reason about common causes in a quantum experiments, but it can also be generalised to a full framework of quantum causal models (mirroring how classical causal models generalise Reichenbach’s principle). This new definition of quantum causal models is illustrated by examples and strengthened by it’s foundation on a robust quantum Reichenbach’s principle. An unusual, but surprisingly fruitful, setting for considering quantum ontology is found by considering time travel to the past. This provides a testbed for different ontological concepts in quantum theory and new ways to compare classical and quantum frameworks. It is especially useful for comparing computational properties. In particular, time travel introduces non-linearity to quantum theory, which brings (sometimes implicit) ontological assumptions to the fore while introducing strange new abilities. Here, a model for quantum time travel is presented which arguably has fewer objectionable features than previous attempts, while remaining similarly well-motivated. This model is discussed and compared with previous quantum models, as well as with the classical case. Together, these threads of investigation develop a better understanding of how quantum theory affects possible ontologies and how ontological prejudices influence quantum theory.
A key aim of quantum foundations is to characterize the sense in which nature goes beyond classical physics. Understanding nonclassicality is one of our best avenues towards finding a satisfactory interpretation of quantum theory. By determining which classical principles cannot be satisfied in any empirically adequate physical theory, we begin to see which principles can be preserved, which in turn gives us insight into the ontology of the world. These insights then guide us in determining which questions to ask and which experiments to perform next. Furthermore, it is these nonclassical aspects of nature that give rise to new technologies such as the speed-ups of quantum computation or the security of quantum key distribution. \n \nThe gold standard for establishing that a phenomenon is truly nonclassical is to prove that it violates the principle of local causality or the principle of noncontextuality. Much of this thesis reports on my research relating to these two principles. This research primarily involves (i) finding new justifications for our notions of nonclassicality; (ii) refining their fundamental definitions; (iii) quantifying and characterizing their various manifestations; and (iv) finding applications where nonclassical phenomena act as resources for information processing. \n \nUltimately, all of this work on nonclassicality is woven together into a novel framework for physical theories introduced by myself, John Selby, and Rob Spekkens. Its main advantage over preexisting frameworks is that it maintains a clear distinction between which elements of a given physical theory directly describe causal processes, and which refer only to one’s inferences about causal processes. This clarifies a number of confusions in the literature which arose precisely because previous frameworks scrambled causal and inferential concepts. Furthermore, local causality and noncontextuality emerge in this framework as the assumptions that the causal and inferential structures (respectively) that are operationally observed must be respected in the underlying ontology. This work constitutes a first step in developing a new interpretation of quantum theory—the first interpretation designed to satisfy the spirit of both local causality and noncontextuality.