Modern theoretical physics faces an abundance of mathematically consistent frameworks and a scarcity of decisive empirical constraints. This work proposes a principled response to that situation by identifying stability under intervention as a primary selection criterion for viable physical theories. Adopting an explicitly operational perspective, the paper formulates stability as the non-amplification of operational distinguishability under physical processes, a requirement motivated by the finite precision and reproducibility of experimental practice. When combined with compositional consistency, purification, and reversible symmetry, this principle strongly constrains admissible statistical frameworks. Within this setting, quantum theory emerges not as a fundamental ontology or a historically contingent choice, but as the uniquely stable non-classical fixed point compatible with reproducible physical control by finite agents embedded within the systems they study. The defining structural features of quantum mechanics, including convex state spaces, affine dynamics, state–effect duality, and a Born-type probability rule, arise as consequences rather than postulates. The framework further suggests that spacetime locality and geometry need not be assumed a priori, but can be understood as constraints on the propagation of distinguishability in composite systems. Potential deviations from quantum theory are predicted to manifest as failures of stability, such as breakdown of dilation, violation of distinguishability monotonicity, or loss of local tomography. This repository contains the final submission-ready manuscript together with its LaTeX source and bibliography, deposited on Zenodo prior to journal submission.This version (v1.1) incorporates clarifications on scope, logical dependencies between principles, worked examples within the Jordan-algebra classification, strengthened hedging of speculative material, and refined statements of falsifiability, in response to detailed referee feedback.
Modern theoretical physics faces an abundance of mathematically consistent frameworks and a scarcity of decisive empirical constraints. This work proposes a principled response to that situation by identifying stability under intervention as a primary selection criterion for viable physical theories. Adopting an explicitly operational perspective, the paper formulates stability as the non-amplification of operational distinguishability under physical processes, a requirement motivated by the finite precision and reproducibility of experimental practice. When combined with compositional consistency, purification, and reversible symmetry, this principle strongly constrains admissible statistical frameworks. Within this setting, quantum theory emerges not as a fundamental ontology or a historically contingent choice, but as the uniquely stable non-classical fixed point compatible with reproducible physical control by finite agents embedded within the systems they study. The defining structural features of quantum mechanics, including convex state spaces, affine dynamics, state–effect duality, and a Born-type probability rule, arise as consequences rather than postulates. The framework further suggests that spacetime locality and geometry need not be assumed a priori, but can be understood as constraints on the propagation of distinguishability in composite systems. Potential deviations from quantum theory are predicted to manifest as failures of stability, such as breakdown of dilation, violation of distinguishability monotonicity, or loss of local tomography. This repository contains the final submission-ready manuscript together with its LaTeX source and bibliography, deposited on Zenodo prior to journal submission.This version (v1.1) incorporates clarifications on scope, logical dependencies between principles, worked examples within the Jordan-algebra classification, strengthened hedging of speculative material, and refined statements of falsifiability, in response to detailed referee feedback.
The Admissibility of Natural Physics, Part I begins where an admissibility-first reconstruction of single-system quantum mechanics ends. Its central question is not whether the familiar tensor-product formalism can be assumed, but whether any physical composition law can be derived without importing composite systems, global state spaces, entanglement, locality, or signalling as primitives. The book develops a disciplined reconstruction of binary quantum composition from operational and structural requirements. It first records the exact content and limitations of the inherited single-system closure, establishes dependency and non-circularity statutes, and introduces the possible object of natural physics only as a provisional target ledger rather than as an assumed ontology. It then examines joint preparation, product states and effects, marginal consistency, operational no-signalling, minimal and maximal probabilistic composites, local tomography, and the classification of admissible tensor-product representations. Particular attention is given to the distinction between a mathematical representation theorem and the uniqueness of a physical composition rule. Real, complex, quaternionic, Jordan-algebraic, minimal, maximal, restricted, and non-tomographic alternatives are compared under explicitly declared admissibility conditions. The complex Hilbert-space tensor product is recovered only on branches satisfying the required factorization, coherence, scalar, and operational closure conditions. Where several inequivalent composites survive, the result is a classified family rather than a falsely asserted uniqueness theorem. Entanglement is introduced only after composition has been commissioned. It is defined as the failure of an admitted joint state to belong to the convex closure of admitted product preparations. The analysis proves, within the resulting predictive grammar, that entanglement is a property of composite-state geometry, not an additional force, substance, interaction mechanism, or signalling channel. Throughout, the argument enforces quotient primacy, refinement stability, finite diagnostic closure, regeneration stability, explicit dependency receipts, local termination, and the possibility of Undefined as a legitimate scientific outcome. Part I therefore supplies neither a speculative ontology nor a presupposed many-world formalism. It provides a conditional classification theorem for binary physical composition and identifies precisely what remains to be established before interaction, repeated composition, particle identity, locality, fields, symmetries, and particle content may be addressed.
Title Ontological Uniqueness of Quantum Mechanics: A Pre-Quantum Classification Theorem Description This work addresses one of the most fundamental questions in theoretical physics: Why does nature employ quantum mechanical structure rather than alternative mathematical frameworks? We prove a rigorous classification theorem showing that quantum mechanics is not one possible theory among many, but the unique mathematical structure compatible with ontological continuity—the principle that "being cannot cease to be." Unlike previous approaches that either interpret quantum mechanics within its existing formalism (many-worlds, Bohmian mechanics) or derive it from operational measurement axioms (Gleason, Hardy, Chiribella-D'Ariano-Perinotti), this work operates at a pre-quantum logical level: we classify which geometric structures are ontologically admissible before introducing any quantum formalism. Main Result: Any theory satisfying minimal ontological requirements—continuity of being, compositional independence of subsystems, and reversibility of closed-system evolution—must describe the space of identity-classes as complex projective space ℂℙⁿ equipped with the Fubini–Study metric. Complex Hilbert space, unitary dynamics, the Schrödinger equation, and the Born rule emerge as necessary geometric consequences, not as postulates. Alternative structures (real or quaternionic projective spaces, non-homogeneous manifolds) are proven ontologically inadmissible through rigorous exclusion arguments. Key Contributions: Rigorous derivation showing that ontological composition forces a symplectic structure, which combined with homogeneity and isotropy uniquely determines Kähler geometry, selecting ℂℙⁿ as the only admissible space. Complete defense against circularity concerns, with detailed appendices showing that the axioms assume no quantum structure—they are purely ontological requirements for coherent continuous being. Systematic distinction from Gleason/Kochen-Specker theorems and operational axiomatizations, clarifying that this work classifies geometries before quantum mechanics, not constraints within it. Testable predictions in cosmology (Hubble tension resolution, matter fluctuation scaling) and quantum foundations (decoherence rates in molecular interferometry), while rigorously separating structural necessity from empirical determination. Significance: This work transforms quantum mechanics from an empirically successful but conceptually mysterious framework into an ontologically inevitable structure—comparable to Einstein's geometrization of gravity. It shows that quantum structure has no alternative: it is the only mathematical form compatible with coherent, continuous, compositional being. The manuscript includes comprehensive technical appendices with full geometric proofs, axiom justifications, and comparative analysis with existing foundational approaches. Suitable for researchers in quantum foundations, mathematical physics, philosophy of physics, and differential geometry. Document Status: Preprint submitted to Foundations of Physics (January 2026). Related Work: This work is part of the Law of Continuity of Being (LCS) research program, which derives physical and ethical structures from fundamental ontological principles. See author's ORCID profile for related publications. Open Access: This preprint is made available under CC BY 4.0 license to facilitate discussion and feedback from the research community prior to peer review.
Every physical measurement ever conducted has yielded exactly one outcome: self-identical, non-contradictory, determinate. This paper argues that the Three Fundamental Laws of Logic (Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle) are not cognitive conventions but ontological constraints constitutive of physical distinguishability. From this thesis, quantum mechanics emerges as the unique stable structure at the interface between non-Boolean possibility and Boolean actuality. The framework derives rather than postulates: complex Hilbert space structure follows from interface constraints combined with the physical requirement of compositional consistency (local tomography); the Born rule follows from Gleason's theorem; unitary dynamics follows from information preservation requirements. One structural prediction, that quantum mechanics requires complex amplitudes, has been experimentally confirmed (Renou et al., 2021). The framework specifies twelve explicit conditions that would falsify it. Logic Realism Theory provides unified explanation for seventeen quantum phenomena that other interpretations treat as independent postulates, while maintaining realism, locality, and parsimony.
What are the physical conditions required for agency?Recent work has rigorously shown that purely unitary, coherence-preserving quantum dynamics are insufficient to support deliberation, comparison of counterfactual actions, and reliable action selection. These results establish a genuine no-go theorem for agency in a strictly quantum-coherent regime.This paper provides a structural completion of that no-go result. Rather than challenging its correctness, the analysis identifies the underlying assumption on which it rests: that unitarity alone is sufficient as an admissibility criterion for decision endpoints. We show that this assumption is incomplete.Working within the Tier-0 closure framework, physical lawfulness is characterized by closure-stable fixed points selected by structural constraints rather than by unconstrained dynamical evolution. Within this framework, coherent quantum states may function as intermediate computational or representational states but are excluded as lawful endpoints for records, decisions, and control.Applying closure stability to quantum systems yields a classical decision subspace without introducing new dynamics, observer-dependent postulates, or interpretation-specific assumptions. The paper further shows that agency requires a closure-stable internal selection process capable of consistent expected-utility comparison. Imposing closure compatibility rigidly fixes the standard quadratic Born probability rule as the only weighting compatible with stability, representation-independence, and admissibility-preserving re-expression.Together, these results integrate agency into the same structural framework that accounts for quantum measurement and probability. The absence of agency in purely quantum-coherent models is shown to reflect an under-constrained admissibility regime rather than a fundamental limitation of quantum theory. Lawful agency emerges as a closure-stable property of coupled agent–world dynamics, fully consistent with standard quantum mechanics.This work clarifies the physical limits of purely quantum models of decision, sharpens existing no-go arguments, and provides a mathematically explicit foundation for agency grounded in structural admissibility rather than interpretation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18028427
What are the physical conditions required for agency? Recent work has rigorously shown that purely unitary, coherence-preserving quantum dynamics are insufficient to support deliberation, comparison of counterfactual actions, and reliable action selection. These results establish a genuine no-go theorem for agency in a strictly quantum-coherent regime. This paper provides a structural completion of that no-go result. Rather than challenging its correctness, the analysis identifies the underlying assumption on which it rests: that unitarity alone is sufficient as an admissibility criterion for decision endpoints. We show that this assumption is incomplete. Working within the Tier-0 closure framework, physical lawfulness is characterized by closure-stable fixed points selected by structural constraints rather than by unconstrained dynamical evolution. Within this framework, coherent quantum states may function as intermediate computational or representational states but are excluded as lawful endpoints for records, decisions, and control. Applying closure stability to quantum systems yields a classical decision subspace without introducing new dynamics, observer-dependent postulates, or interpretation-specific assumptions. The paper further shows that agency requires a closure-stable internal selection process capable of consistent expected-utility comparison. Imposing closure compatibility rigidly fixes the standard quadratic Born probability rule as the only weighting compatible with stability, representation-independence, and admissibility-preserving re-expression. Together, these results integrate agency into the same structural framework that accounts for quantum measurement and probability. The absence of agency in purely quantum-coherent models is shown to reflect an under-constrained admissibility regime rather than a fundamental limitation of quantum theory. Lawful agency emerges as a closure-stable property of coupled agent–world dynamics, fully consistent with standard quantum mechanics. This work clarifies the physical limits of purely quantum models of decision, sharpens existing no-go arguments, and provides a mathematically explicit foundation for agency grounded in structural admissibility rather than interpretation.
This work provides a structural derivation of the quadratic form of the Born rule in quantum mechanics. Rather than postulating the probability rule as a foundational axiom, the paper proves that the exponent governing quantum probabilities is uniquely fixed by stability, contractivity, and duality requirements imposed on admissible physical laws. The analysis is carried out within a general operator-theoretic and law-space framework, in which physical laws are treated as fixed points of recursive generative dynamics. By combining strict contractive flow (Kappa Law), topological rigidity (Law of Endogenous Constraint), and algebra–geometry duality (Monad Duality), the paper demonstrates that only the Hilbert–Schmidt geometry is compatible with global stability of law evolution. As a consequence, the quadratic probability rule emerges as a rigid structural invariant rather than a free modeling choice. The result implies that any hypothetical modification of quantum theory based on non-quadratic probability rules would necessarily violate at least one of the fundamental structural requirements of admissible physical law, such as uniform contractivity, spectral stability, or duality consistency. Relation to Tier-1 dynamical formulation: This work develops a law-level (structural) resolution of the Born exponent. A complementary Tier-1 dynamical realization, formulated entirely within a constrained operator framework and independent of law-level recursion language, is developed in: J. Rodgers, Saturation Geometry and the Structural Emergence of Measurement and the Born Rule in a Capacity-Constrained Dirac–Λ System, Zenodo (2026).https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18704783 The Tier-1 formulation may be read independently and derives the quadratic Born rule as a consequence of modular implementability and saturation geometry within the coupled Dirac–Λ system.