This paper introduces and formalizes the Principle of Structural Non-Neutrality: In a coherent system, no part can be structurally neutral. Beginning from the quantum limits of measurement—where informative observation necessarily disturbs the observed system—we argue that this apparent "strangeness" of quantum mechanics is not an anomaly but a minimal requirement for any system in which the observer is physically embedded. Classical physics, by contrast, implicitly assumes an external observer who can extract information without interaction—a privilege that no physical theory can consistently grant. From this insight, we derive a sharp distinction between systems and models: A system is that which cannot be known without being changed A model is that which can be known without being changed This distinction yields our central principle: in a genuinely coherent system, every part must contribute to the global structure. Structural neutrality—the presence of a part that makes no difference to the system's state space—is logically incompatible with coherence. Key Contributions Formal definition of structural relevance using mutual information: R(p, S) = I(p; S \ {p}), with exact neutrality defined as R = 0 Proof by contradiction demonstrating that coherent systems (as defined) cannot contain structurally neutral elements Unification of existing frameworks: reliability theory's "component relevance," quantum non-separability, and Integrated Information Theory's irreducibility are shown to be instances of a single structural requirement Resolution of apparent counterexamples: redundant components, silent genes, weakly coupled systems, and gauge degrees of freedom are analyzed and shown to be compatible with the principle Connection to quantum interpretations: the principle constrains (without adjudicating among) many-worlds, decoherence-based, QBist, and relational interpretations Applications: epistemology (coherentist justification), reliability engineering, biological networks, and ecological systems Theoretical Framework The paper traces a conceptual path: Quantum measurement limits → Observer embeddedness → Systems vs. models distinction → Structural non-neutrality principle → Applications across domains The principle is offered not as a revolutionary discovery but as a unifying formulation that makes explicit what several frameworks already imply, while grounding this shared requirement in the impossibility of genuinely external observation. Keywords quantum measurement; observer problem; coherent systems; structural non-neutrality; systems theory; integrated information; reliability theory; quantum foundations; philosophy of physics; mutual information; non-separability; decoherence Academic Context This work bridges quantum foundations, general systems theory, and philosophy of science. It is relevant to researchers in: Foundations of quantum mechanics Philosophy of physics Complex systems theory Integrated Information Theory Reliability engineering Theoretical biology Epistemology (coherentism) Note: This paper underwent multiple rounds of peer review and revision, addressing concerns about scope, mathematical formalization, relation to existing literature, and applicability limits. The final version includes a graded measure of structural relevance, explicit comparison with IIT and reliability theory, treatment of apparent counterexamples, and open questions for future research.
This paper introduces and formalizes the Principle of Structural Non-Neutrality: In a coherent system, no part can be structurally neutral. Beginning from the quantum limits of measurement—where informative observation necessarily disturbs the observed system—we argue that this apparent "strangeness" of quantum mechanics is not an anomaly but a minimal requirement for any system in which the observer is physically embedded. Classical physics, by contrast, implicitly assumes an external observer who can extract information without interaction—a privilege that no physical theory can consistently grant. From this insight, we derive a sharp distinction between systems and models: A system is that which cannot be known without being changed A model is that which can be known without being changed This distinction yields our central principle: in a genuinely coherent system, every part must contribute to the global structure. Structural neutrality—the presence of a part that makes no difference to the system's state space—is logically incompatible with coherence. Key Contributions Formal definition of structural relevance using mutual information: R(p, S) = I(p; S \ {p}), with exact neutrality defined as R = 0 Proof by contradiction demonstrating that coherent systems (as defined) cannot contain structurally neutral elements Unification of existing frameworks: reliability theory's "component relevance," quantum non-separability, and Integrated Information Theory's irreducibility are shown to be instances of a single structural requirement Resolution of apparent counterexamples: redundant components, silent genes, weakly coupled systems, and gauge degrees of freedom are analyzed and shown to be compatible with the principle Connection to quantum interpretations: the principle constrains (without adjudicating among) many-worlds, decoherence-based, QBist, and relational interpretations Applications: epistemology (coherentist justification), reliability engineering, biological networks, and ecological systems Theoretical Framework The paper traces a conceptual path: Quantum measurement limits → Observer embeddedness → Systems vs. models distinction → Structural non-neutrality principle → Applications across domains The principle is offered not as a revolutionary discovery but as a unifying formulation that makes explicit what several frameworks already imply, while grounding this shared requirement in the impossibility of genuinely external observation. Keywords quantum measurement; observer problem; coherent systems; structural non-neutrality; systems theory; integrated information; reliability theory; quantum foundations; philosophy of physics; mutual information; non-separability; decoherence Academic Context This work bridges quantum foundations, general systems theory, and philosophy of science. It is relevant to researchers in: Foundations of quantum mechanics Philosophy of physics Complex systems theory Integrated Information Theory Reliability engineering Theoretical biology Epistemology (coherentism) Note: This paper underwent multiple rounds of peer review and revision, addressing concerns about scope, mathematical formalization, relation to existing literature, and applicability limits. The final version includes a graded measure of structural relevance, explicit comparison with IIT and reliability theory, treatment of apparent counterexamples, and open questions for future research.
This work introduces the foundations of an observer-dependent informational theory of physics.Rather than proposing a closed or final model, the paper establishes the conceptual and methodological architecture of a unified research program in which physical phenomena are described through observer-accessible informational states. The theory treats the observer as an integral component of physical description, rather than as an external disturbance or purely abstract entity.Information is defined operationally, as a relational construct linking observation, structure, and temporal coherence. The paper does not present new mathematical derivations.Instead, it provides a stable foundational framework that unifies a set of modular technical works, each addressing specific physical, cognitive, or interpretative problems. Mathematical formulations, empirical models, and testable predictions are delegated to the corresponding modular papers, allowing the theory to evolve through falsification and refinement without requiring repeated foundational revision. This contribution is intended as a foundational reference for an evolving observer-centered informational approach to physics.
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.
TitleStructural Observability: A Framework for Quantum Measurement and Probability This paper proposes the Structural Observability (SO) framework for interpreting quantum measurement and probability. The framework distinguishes between a Complete Relational Configuration (CRC), representing the full relational structure of reality, and the Limited Observational Reference Frame (L-ORF), representing the restricted observational perspective available to observers embedded within spacetime. Within this structure, definite outcomes arise when components of a system’s state become associated with distinguishable physical records in spacetime, a condition termed Structural Observability. Quantum probabilities then arise from the structural limitations imposed by the L-ORF description rather than from fundamental randomness in the underlying configuration. The framework preserves the standard mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics—Hilbert space, unitary evolution, and the Born rule—while providing a structural account of why these elements appear in the observational description. Version 2 — What's new: This version represents a substantial development of the framework presented in Version 1. Major additions include: a formal mathematical structure section with five axioms for the accessibility map Λ, a causal context space (Σ, ≤) making the temporal structure of the framework explicit, and a three-part Structural Observability condition stated as a formal definition with a proof that decoherence is necessary but not sufficient for SO. Six worked examples are included, replacing the purely conceptual treatment of Version 1. Two novel experimental predictions are introduced: a first prediction concerning a critical stability threshold τ below which raw unpost-selected interference is directly observable, and a second prediction concerning a retrievability timescale τR* identified with the quantum information scrambling time, above which interference may again become observable. Together, these define a three-regime non-monotonic structure of interference visibility with no analogue in standard quantum mechanics. A full Statement on AI Assistance has been added, documenting the role of AI language models in the development of the work.* Keywords Quantum foundationsQuantum measurementBorn ruleDecoherenceRelational physics Structural observabilityQuantum interpretation
Quantum mechanics has achieved unparalleled success as an operational theory, describing a wide range of experiments to remarkable accuracy. However, the physical foundations on which it rests remain as puzzling as they were a century ago, and a concise statement of the physical principles that underlie quantum mechanics is still outstanding. One promising approach holds that these principles should be formulated in terms of information, since many of the counter-intuitive effects in quantum theory concern questions such as what one can know about a quantum system and how the information encoded therein can be processed and distributed between parties. Another challenging feature of quantum theory is its incompatibility with the other cornerstone of modern physics, general relativity. In order to reconcile the two, one must identify and retain only the essential concepts and principles of each theory, and in the case of general relativity, causality has been identified as such a concept. This raises the question of how our classical understanding of causality must change when quantum theory is taken into account. In order to address these questions about information, knowledge and causality, I turn to the framework of causal models. In classical statistics, causal models explain the relations among a set of variables in terms of causal influences, which makes them a powerful tool for structuring our knowledge about complex systems and developing strategies for interacting with them. More importantly, the framework provides the conceptual underpinnings and mathematical methods for addressing questions about causation, information and knowledge in a rigorous manner. In this thesis, I develop a version of the classical causal models framework that is compatible with quantum theory and explore its physical implications. \n \n \nA first step is to define quantum versions of fundamental elements such as variables, conditionals and belief propagation rules. This allows one to consider the question of what one can come to know about a quantum variable from the point of view of causal modelling. The conditionals relating quantum variables are found to have a richer structure than their classical counterparts, which can be exploited for the task of discerning causal relations given limited data -- a central problem in classical causal modelling. The mathematical properties of quantum conditionals also establish a correspondence between various classes of two-party correlations, such as bound and distillable entanglement, and the types of causal structures that can give rise to them, which may become a useful tool for entanglement theory and quantum information processing. In the context of open quantum systems dynamics, quantum causal models provide a clear physical explanation of not completely positive maps and, more broadly, of non-Markovian quantum dynamics. Finally, I consider the possibility of non-classical effects in the way that different causal mechanisms are combined -- that is, non-classical causal structures. For the simple case of two causally ordered variables, I propose indicators that witness different classes of combinations of causal mechanisms, including a non-classical mixture, and describe an experiment realizing examples of the different classes. \n \n \nAs these results illustrate, the framework of quantum causal models provides both greater conceptual clarity and a comprehensive mathematical formalism for studying a diverse set of problems, ranging from foundational questions to applications in open systems dynamics and the exploration of non-classical causal structures, which are likely to feature in a future theory of quantum gravity. The material presented in this thesis is intended as a foundation and inspiration for further applications of quantum causal models.
Summary: Why does reality remain stable?Physics successfully describes how systems evolve, yet a more fundamental question remains largely unexplored: why do stable structures exist at all?Why does one informational configuration become a persistent physical object while countless alternative possibilities never stabilize? This paper proposes a common stabilization mechanism underlying quantum decoherence, Fourier analysis, machine learning, recursive systems, biological regulation, logical exclusion and language. This work may be of interest to researchers in: quantum foundations information theory complex systems logic computational physics machine learning philosophy of physics This manuscript develops the NNO operator step by step, examines its structural parallels across multiple disciplines, and discusses its implications for observer-relative reality, antimatter, and quantum spin. Description: The NNO Stabilization Operator This paper introduces the NNO operator (Negation–Negation–Oscillation), a minimal conceptual mechanism describing how informational configurations become stable and persistent through observation. Its central idea is straightforward: reality does not emerge simply because information accumulates. It emerges because informational configurations repeatedly survive confrontation with incompatible alternatives relative to the observer. Any direct interaction introduces orientation and polarity, which in turn generate a conjugate alternative. A single negation leaves an active ambiguity relative to the informational evolution of an observer. Stabilization therefore requires two inseparable and complementary mechanisms combined into one conceptual operator: Double Negation — a two-step exclusion process requiring a configuration to remain coherent after confrontation with its logical inverse and that of the observer. Oscillation — phase alternation that progressively removes dependence on origin, scale, and monotonic accumulation, leaving only phase-invariant informational structures. Within this framework, stable reality corresponds to informational patterns that remain invariant under repeated exclusion and phase alternation relative to an observer, validating informational structures across successive observations rather than merely selecting a local configuration. Background Although developed independently, remarkably similar stabilization processes appear throughout science and mathematics. Examples include: quantum decoherence and phase scrambling signal processing and Fourier phase integration renormalization and universality logical systems based on exclusion (NAND, NOR, intuitionistic logic) machine learning optimization, convergence and loss-driven exclusion recursive dynamical systems and fractal invariants biological regulation through oscillatory turnover and selective instability semantic stabilization in language and cognition Despite their different formalisms, all of these mechanisms progressively eliminate unstable possibilities until only robust, observer-relative structures remain.This work argues that these apparently unrelated phenomena may represent different manifestations of the same underlying informational principle. Main implications Within this framework, the NNO operator provides an informational interpretation of: observer-relative reality quantum decoherence phase-dependent emergence and stabilization of physical structures phase invariance exclusion-based stabilization persistence of informational structures A companion paper extends these ideas to quantum spin and phase-dependent observer effects. The paper further examines orientation-reversed invariants as a necessary boundary case for any stabilization operator, showing that NNO stabilization remains valid under inverted informational orientation. Within this perspective, antimatter can be described as the stabilization of the same informational structure under inverted orientation. This proposition is consistent with CPT symmetry and the Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation, without invoking literal backward time propagation. Scope of this work This article is intentionally conceptual. It does not propose a new mathematical formalism or seek to replace established physical theories. Instead, it identifies a minimal stabilization mechanism that appears implicitly across numerous successful theoretical frameworks and proposes a unified informational interpretation of their common logic. The objective is to provide a conceptual foundation for future: mathematical formalization computational modeling independent verification cross-disciplinary investigation As such, the author welcomes constructive discussion, independent verification, mathematical formalization, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Relation to other work This publication constitutes the second major conceptual component of the Universal Theory of Information (TUI) research program. The current sequence consists of: The Universal Theory of Information (TUI): Emergence of Physics from Informational DynamicsInformational foundations of space, time, mass, gravity, and physical reality. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15106945 The NNO OperatorStabilization of informational structures through double negation and oscillation. Spin as a Signature of Information ExclusionInformational interpretation of quantum spin and observer-dependent phase stabilization. (Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18443042 This paper can be read independently, but reaches its full coherence when considered as part of the TUI–NNO–SPIN conceptual sequence.Together, these works propose a unified informational framework in which physical reality emerges from discrete informational interactions, while stable structures arise through recursive stabilization rather than accumulation alone. About the author Mathieu Valentin Rondet is an independent researcher investigating the informational foundations of physical reality through the Universal Theory of Information (TUI) research program. He holds two master's degrees in molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics, and biochemistry, completed in France and the United States. His academic background is complemented by more than twenty years of professional experience developing physically based simulations, procedural systems, and complex dynamic environments for the visual effects industry. His research combines concepts from information theory, complex systems, computational modeling, logic, and physics to investigate observer-relative informational structures and the emergence of stable physical phenomena. If the proposed stabilization mechanism does capture a genuine cross-domain invariant, it could provide a common conceptual foundation linking informational persistence across logic, computation, biology, and fundamental physics.
Persistent attempts to interpret quantum theory in terms of classical separability have obscured the structural origins of non-separable phenomena in modern physics. This paper argues that non-separability is not an exclusively quantum feature, but the culmination of a structural transition already implicit in the breakdown of integrability in classical mechanics. Building on insights from Poincaré, Planck, Einstein, and Bohr, the analysis traces how global separations fail under generic dynamics and how fundamental constants encode obstructions to arbitrary decomposition. Complementarity and contextuality are then reinterpreted as emergent structural constraints arising from mutually defining dynamical and observational frameworks, rather than as fundamental postulates. This perspective situates quantum theory within a broader structural continuum and aligns naturally with contemporary relational and structural realist approaches to physical theory.