This paper develops a minimal ontological and axiomatic foundation for a unified physical framework. It identifies a small set of primitives, axioms, and consistency conditions required to formulate coherent physical theories without presupposing spacetime, dynamics, probability, or measurement. The framework is intentionally non-phenomenological and is designed to serve as a stable foundation for subsequent developments in dynamics, quantization, and emergent physical structure.
This paper develops a minimal ontological and axiomatic foundation for a unified physical framework. It identifies a small set of primitives, axioms, and consistency conditions required to formulate coherent physical theories without presupposing spacetime, dynamics, probability, or measurement. The framework is intentionally non-phenomenological and is designed to serve as a stable foundation for subsequent developments in dynamics, quantization, and emergent physical structure.
This work presents a unified generative framework for logic, computation, and physical theories, starting from a minimal recursive structure. Rather than assuming pre-existing logical axioms, computational primitives, or physical laws, the framework derives them as emergent features of a single generative process governed by stabilization and constraint propagation. Within this model, classical logic and computation arise as stabilized regimes of recursive structure, while quantum-mechanical phenomena are interpreted as pre-stabilization behavior—patterns that have not yet resolved into invariant records at the emergent spatial level. Superposition, interference, entanglement, and measurement are described structurally, without invoking parallel-world narratives or epistemic uncertainty. Measurement is treated as constraint coupling that forces refinement until a stable record forms. The framework emphasizes pattern persistence, invariance under refinement, and dynamic resolution as organizing principles. It provides a conceptual account of quantum behavior that is consistent with standard quantum mechanics while reframing it as a consequence of generative structure rather than an axiomatic starting point. This work is foundational and conceptual in nature. It does not propose new experimental predictions or modifications to established physical theory, but aims to clarify the structural relationship between computation, logic, and physics, and to offer a coherent ontological picture underlying these domains.Contact: arthur.nogman@gmail.com
This paper presents the complete axiomatic foundation of the Ze Vector Theory (ZVT), a unified framework for fundamental physics. ZVT posits a single ontological primitive—the Ze State—which inherently admits both a continuous (vector) and a discrete (counter) representation. From this basis, the theory derives space and time as antiparallel, co-equal projections of the State, rather than assuming them as a background manifold. Physical dynamics are defined as the norm-preserving redistribution of the State's measure, from which causality and quantum phenomena emerge naturally. Quantum discreteness is shown to be a consequence of the discrete substrate, while interference patterns arise from the superposition of statistical pathways for state transitions, eliminating the need for a physical collapse postulate. The theory intrinsically defines an observer as an autonomous subsystem capable of stable registration. Crucially, ZVT demonstrates that Special Relativity, General Relativity, standard Quantum Theory, and Causal Set Theory arise as specific limiting regimes of its general formalism. By deriving, rather than postulating, the core concepts of modern physics and seamlessly integrating the continuous and discrete, ZVT offers a coherent, monistic, and relational foundation for a unified description of reality.
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 document presents the philosophical foundations and applied implications of the Universal Correlational Lattice (UCL) and the Ω-Framework, a theoretical program in which spacetime, quantum fields, observables, and effective physical laws emerge from a single correlational structure. Rather than treating philosophy of physics as a purely interpretative layer placed after formal theory, this work adopts a constructive philosophical stance: ontology, epistemology, and operational meaning are treated as structural components that directly constrain and shape the mathematical formulation of physical theories. The core thesis is that physical reality is fundamentally correlational, not object-based. All observables, symmetries, conservation laws, and effective dynamics arise from a universal correlational kernel defined over internal degrees of freedom and internal times. Spacetime, causality, and classical fields appear only as emergent, coarse-grained descriptions of this deeper correlational substrate. This document addresses, in a unified way: The ontological status of physical structures in the Ω-Framework The role of internal time, relational observables, and contextual measurement A precise operational definition of observables, free from classical background assumptions The distinction between fundamental correlational quantities and effective physical observables How classical concepts (particles, fields, spacetime, trajectories) emerge as stable correlational regimes The relationship between the framework and established theories such as QFT, General Relativity, and effective field theories Criteria for physical meaning, testability, and falsifiability within a correlational theory Crucially, the work postulates that the Ω-Framework is not merely interpretative: it produces concrete, computable observables and effective predictions, including toy-model applications to known physical quantities. Natural philosophy here is expected to work and the current thesis is that it functions as a structural constraint, not as speculation. By explicitly separating: what is fundamental vs. emergent, what is ontological vs. operational, and what is model-dependent vs. structurally necessary, the document provides a rigorous foundation for extending the Ω-Framework toward quantitative physics, while remaining internally consistent and immune to common interpretational ambiguities. This work is intended for philosophy of physics, quantum foundations, quantum gravity, emergent spacetime programs, and theoretical physics seeking a structurally grounded alternative to object-based formalisms.
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 article is the second part of a three-paper sequence developing Ontological Field Theory (OFT) as 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.