This work proposes a minimal ontological framework aimed at systematically resolving key conceptual paradoxes of contemporary physics. The central claim is that many foundational difficulties of twentieth- and twenty-first-century physics arise not from empirical anomalies or mathematical inconsistencies, but from a conflation of mathematical formalism with ontological interpretation. On the basis of a small set of minimal ontological axioms, the work addresses and resolves ten fundamental paradoxes, including wave–particle duality, the measurement problem and collapse, the arrow of time, irreversibility, quantization, the nature of gravity, cosmological origin, the finiteness of the Universe, the status of singularities, and the information paradox. The proposed framework introduces no new physical entities and does not modify existing physical equations. Instead, it imposes strict ontological constraints from which these phenomena follow as necessary consequences. The work does not present an alternative physical theory, but rather an ontological foundation explaining why modern physical theories are successful and why they encounter inherent explanatory limits.
This work proposes a minimal ontological framework aimed at systematically resolving key conceptual paradoxes of contemporary physics. The central claim is that many foundational difficulties of twentieth- and twenty-first-century physics arise not from empirical anomalies or mathematical inconsistencies, but from a conflation of mathematical formalism with ontological interpretation. On the basis of a small set of minimal ontological axioms, the work addresses and resolves ten fundamental paradoxes, including wave–particle duality, the measurement problem and collapse, the arrow of time, irreversibility, quantization, the nature of gravity, cosmological origin, the finiteness of the Universe, the status of singularities, and the information paradox. The proposed framework introduces no new physical entities and does not modify existing physical equations. Instead, it imposes strict ontological constraints from which these phenomena follow as necessary consequences. The work does not present an alternative physical theory, but rather an ontological foundation explaining why modern physical theories are successful and why they encounter inherent explanatory limits.
Foundational paradoxes continue to persist in modern physics despite the remarkableempirical success of established theories. These paradoxes do not arise from failed predictionsor mathematical inconsistency, but from recurring conceptual tensions across quantummechanics, gravity, cosmology, and questions of identity, causality, and emergence.This paper examines twenty-four well-known paradoxes spanning these domains andproposes a unified resolution strategy. The analysis is methodological rather than technical:no new dynamics, particles, or forces are introduced, and no modifications to establishedformalisms are required. Instead, the paradoxes are shown to arise from a systematicconflation of descriptive levels, in which constructs native to effective theories are tacitlytreated as ontologically fundamental.By interpreting established theories as projection-level descriptions constrained by domain-specific validity, the paradoxes admit concise and uniform resolutions. Across all cases, themathematical frameworks remain intact; what changes is the interpretation of their ontologicalreach. The recurrence of this resolution pattern across independent and historically distinctparadoxes provides strong support for an ontological distinction between generative structureand effective physical description, articulated here in a deliberately restrained form.The resulting perspective reduces, rather than inflates, ontological commitments whilerestoring conceptual coherence across domains that are otherwise treated in isolation. Withoutspecifying the detailed nature of the generative level, the analysis establishes a unifiedinterpretive framework within which many longstanding foundational problems lose theirforce
The core dilemma of modern physics stems from two unproven ontological presuppositions: that spacetime is an innate container preceding matter, and that matter is an entity composed of indivisible particles. These presuppositions have led to the fundamental split between general relativity and quantum mechanics, giving rise to a series of century-old unsolved problems such as wave-particle duality, the quantum measurement paradox, the nature of gravity, and dark matter and dark energy. Based on the sole unfalsifiable first principle that "the essence of cognition is succession", this paper deduces a complete ontological system through pure a priori reasoning: the authentic physical world consists solely of one-dimensional successive rays and their transverse coupling relations; time is the successive extension of rays, space is the network of coupling relations, matter is the steady state of closed coupling, and all interactions are different manifestations of coupling actions. Particles are not authentically existing entities, but rather point-like endpoint phenomena presented in the observer's phenomenal world when two rays undergo an all-or-nothing coupling. Based on this framework, this paper uniformly explains all core phenomena in both the microscopic quantum domain and the macroscopic relativistic domain in one go, resolves all traditional physical paradoxes at the ontological level, achieves the ontological unification of the four fundamental forces, and proposes three falsifiable core predictions. This paper demonstrates that all theories of traditional physics are approximate descriptions of the authentic physical world at the phenomenal level, and their fundamental error lies in mistaking "coupling endpoints" for "primitive entities", thereby reversing the causal relationship. Cognitive Succession Ontology provides a logically consistent and universally unified ultimate foundation for 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.
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.
Contemporary fundamental physics combines extraordinary empirical success with the per-sistence of unresolved foundational difficulties. While theoretical frameworks continue to in-crease in formal sophistication, certain classes of conceptual problems remain stable acrosssuccessive developments. This paper argues that this situation reflects a structural feature ofscientific methodology rather than a collection of isolated technical shortcomings.The central claim is that a methodological asymmetry between formal and ontological el-ements of scientific theories gives rise to a structural catch–22. Formal structures are readilyrevised, extended or elaborated, whereas ontological commitments that delimit a theory’s do-main of applicability are typically held fixed and remain implicit. As a result, foundationalproblems that originate at the level of interpretive structure cannot be resolved within the spaceof admissible responses, leading instead to formal complication or interpretive proliferation.Against this background, foundational paradoxes are not treated here as primary targetsof resolution but as diagnostic indicators of this structural constraint. The paper develops asystematic classification of paradox formation across fundamental physics, identifying five recur-ring mechanisms of ontological misalignment: boundary-region effects, illicit domain extension,projection conflation, temporal category errors and interpretive overloading. These mechanismsrecur across diverse theoretical contexts and account for the persistence of otherwise disparateparadoxes.The papers contribution is methodological and diagnostic: to clarify the structural conditionsunder which certain classes of foundational problems arise and persist and to show how makingontological commitments explicit can expand the space of coherent scientific description withoutundermining empirical rigor. The analysis also highlights how prevailing publication practicestend to reinforce the structural dynamics identified here.
Operatoric Research CorpusStudies in World-Formation Section I Ontology and Physics Volume 2 The Ontological Limits of Physical ExplanationMeasurement, Collapse and Boundary Phenomena in Quantum Physics This volume brings together a series of contributions on the ontology of fundamental problems in physics, in particular the measurement problem of quantum mechanics, the collapse of the wave function, the relationship between quantum mechanics and relativity theory, as well as boundary phenomena such as black holes, renormalization, and vacuum energy. The point of departure of these investigations is the thesis that numerous paradoxes of modern physics do not primarily result from insufficient physical theories, but from a categorical misaddressing. Transitions that concern the very conditions of world stability—especially the transition from possibility to facticity—are often interpreted as dynamical processes within an already stabilized world. This gives rise to explanatory programs that attempt to bridge this boundary by means of additional mechanisms, ontologies, or informational structures. The texts collected in this volume pursue an alternative strategy. They understand the so-called collapse of the wave function not as a physical process, but as an irreversible constriction of a space of possibility through which objectivity and the direction of time first emerge at all. The concept of indimergence designates the boundary act in which possibility passes into facticity without itself being describable as an event within the world. On the basis of this determination, central approaches in the foundations of quantum mechanics—particularly dynamical collapse models, Many-Worlds interpretations, and information-theoretic ontologies—are comparatively analyzed. It becomes evident that, despite their differences, they share a common presupposition: the assumption that the transition from possibility to facticity must itself be explicable within physical description. The contributions in this volume instead propose to read the measurement problem and related paradoxes as indications of structural limits of physical description. From this perspective, other fundamental problems—such as the tension between quantum mechanics and relativity theory, the information paradoxes of black holes, or divergences in field theory—no longer appear primarily as unsolved technical puzzles, but as boundary phenomena of world formation itself. The volume therefore does not present itself as an alternative physical theory, but as an ontological clarification of the conditions under which physical theories are able to describe a world at all.