This preprint presents a foundations-level analysis of physical description based on structural dependency rather than dynamical construction. Quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, and relativistic spacetime are treated as effective regimes arising under different structural conditions, rather than as competing ontologies. The analysis identifies persistence under interaction, irreversible constraint accumulation, stable relational structure, and interaction as minimal requirements for physical behaviour. Collapse is characterised as irreversible loss of compatibility between alternative continuations, without appeal to observers, stochastic dynamics, or additional postulates. Time is treated as structural ordering induced by exclusion, rather than as a primitive background parameter. No new dynamics are proposed and no empirically successful theories are modified. The aim is to clarify explanatory dependencies that underlie familiar physical regimes and to dissolve persistent foundational problems that arise when regime-level descriptions are misidentified as foundations.
This preprint presents a foundations-level analysis of physical description based on structural dependency rather than dynamical construction. Quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, and relativistic spacetime are treated as effective regimes arising under different structural conditions, rather than as competing ontologies. The analysis identifies persistence under interaction, irreversible constraint accumulation, stable relational structure, and interaction as minimal requirements for physical behaviour. Collapse is characterised as irreversible loss of compatibility between alternative continuations, without appeal to observers, stochastic dynamics, or additional postulates. Time is treated as structural ordering induced by exclusion, rather than as a primitive background parameter. No new dynamics are proposed and no empirically successful theories are modified. The aim is to clarify explanatory dependencies that underlie familiar physical regimes and to dissolve persistent foundational problems that arise when regime-level descriptions are misidentified as foundations.
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.
This work presents a continuous, constraint-based interpretive framework for physical systems that unifies quantum behavior, classical structure, and cosmological evolution without introducing new forces or modifying established equations. Rather than treating quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, and general relativity as fundamentally separate domains, the paper proposes that these regimes can be understood as consistent descriptions of a shared underlying structure. The framework is built on three foundational elements: a non-geometric substrate (P_0) defining admissible configurations, interaction as the propagation of constraint, and geometry as the macroscopic record of accumulated interaction. Within this perspective, physical structure emerges through a continuous progression: distinctions enable gradients, gradients enable interaction, interaction accumulates as constraint, and constraint stabilizes into persistent configurations. The quantum–classical transition is interpreted as a continuous increase in interaction-induced constraint, while spacetime curvature reflects the large-scale organization of these interactions. The framework does not replace existing theories, but instead provides a unified conceptual interpretation that remains fully consistent with established physics across known regimes. Its value lies in clarifying relationships between domains, offering a continuous ontology of physical systems, and suggesting potential directions for further formalization.
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.
(This version has been superceeded, see v.3) Contemporary approaches to physical unification typically emphasize dynamical laws, interpretive frameworks, or information-theoretic reconstructions. Less attention is given to the structural constraints that determine which physical descriptions can remain coherent and stable under interaction, scale transition, and aggregation. This paper develops a constraint-first analysis of coherence, arguing that persistence and unification require restrictions on admissible physical continuations that are not reducible to dynamics alone. Within the framework referred to here as Quantum Coherence Theory (QCT), coherence is treated not as a fragile quantum resource but as a structural property governed by interaction geometry and constraint density. On this view, classical behavior emerges when accumulated constraints sufficiently narrow admissible evolution, while quantum behavior re-emerges when constraints are relaxed. The account does not introduce new dynamics, collapse mechanisms, or modifications of quantum formalism, but instead clarifies the conditions under which existing formalisms yield stable, unified descriptions. The resulting constraints distinguish QCT from observer-centric, intrinsic-collapse, and purely descriptive decoherence accounts, while remaining compatible with globally unitary dynamics. Formal analysis in later sections develops operational redundancy conditions, admissibility constraints on joint states, and rigidity-style arguments linking redundant record structure to the stability of classical descriptions. These results do not constitute a complete theory of unification, but they narrow the space of physically admissible descriptions and clarify the structural role of coherence in bridging quantum and classical regimes.
This paper presents a continuous structural ontology in which quantum mechanics, field theory, and general relativity are interpreted as regime-specific descriptions of a shared underlying system. Rather than introducing new forces or modifying established equations, the framework identifies three minimal and persistent structural elements across physical regimes: admissible configuration space, propagating constraint, and geometry as the macroscopic record of accumulated interaction. The work is intentionally interpretive rather than revisionary. It proposes that physical evolution can be understood as the propagation of constraint over admissible configurations, with increasing restriction giving rise to stable structure, classical behavior, and geometric curvature. Established mathematical formalisms—including Hilbert space, field equations, and general relativity—are preserved and reinterpreted within a common structural language. This framework aims to improve conceptual continuity across quantum, field, and geometric domains while remaining fully consistent with existing empirical results. It does not claim a complete formal unification, but instead offers a minimal ontological foundation that may clarify relationships between currently distinct theoretical descriptions. This paper forms part of the broader Communication Matrix research program.
If these constraints hold, physical theories must take the form they do. This paper evaluates how established physical theories relate to a set of foundational constraints derived without physical assumptions. Building on prior work that establishes the necessity of transition, irreversibility, probabilistic constraint, temporal order, and entropy as logical requirements for nontrivial describable ontology, it examines whether classical mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and relativity instantiate, approximate, or presuppose these structures. Rather than proposing new physics or modifying existing theories, the paper adopts an explicitly evaluative stance. Each theory is assessed according to whether it supports irreversible transition, structured possibility, ordered asymmetry, and monotonic entropy understood as irreversible constraint accumulation. Particular attention is given to quantum mechanics as a stress test, showing that probabilistic transition and irreversible measurement instantiate the derived constraints independently of interpretive commitments. The analysis demonstrates that successful physical theories do not escape these foundational constraints, and that apparent tensions arise only from idealized formalisms or interpretive abstractions. The framework thus serves as a diagnostic lens for understanding why physical theories must take the forms they do, rather than as a replacement for empirical physics.