Quantum mechanics places “wholeness” at the core of scientific description, yet this very act creates a fundamental clash with our classical intuition. Traditional philosophical holism (e.g., “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”), while intuitively appealing, struggles to engage with precise science due to its inherent vagueness. This paper aims to bridge this gap. We take an unconventional approach, starting not from the history of philosophy but from the scientific problem itself. By constructing two nuanced thought-experiment models—the “Spear and Shield” paradox and the “Boxing Match”—we translate the abstract quantum wholeness (superposition-entanglement-collapse) into an intuitive “potential-process-actual” structure of events. Based on this isomorphic model, we distill and rigorously argue for a novel ontological principle: “1=N”. This principle posits that, in the fundamental order of existence, cognition, and reference, the whole as a unified entity at a specific functional level (1) is logically prior to the collection of its parts (N). The key advancements of this paper are: 1) Explicitly embedding “stratification” as an intrinsic property of “1,” proposing that reality is recursively constituted by “1”s at different levels; 2) Introducing the concept of “parsing” as the universal mechanism generating determinate phenomena (a specific “1”) from the potential whole (N), thereby offering a clear resolution to puzzles like quantum measurement; and 3) Actively engaging “1=N” with contemporary relational ontology and decoherence theory, establishing it as a precise, operational framework for holism. Originating from quantum conundrums, this principle provides a unified and robust philosophical foundation for understanding everything from microscopic particles to life and social systems.
Quantum mechanics places “wholeness” at the core of scientific description, yet this very act creates a fundamental clash with our classical intuition. Traditional philosophical holism (e.g., “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”), while intuitively appealing, struggles to engage with precise science due to its inherent vagueness. This paper aims to bridge this gap. We take an unconventional approach, starting not from the history of philosophy but from the scientific problem itself. By constructing two nuanced thought-experiment models—the “Spear and Shield” paradox and the “Boxing Match”—we translate the abstract quantum wholeness (superposition-entanglement-collapse) into an intuitive “potential-process-actual” structure of events. Based on this isomorphic model, we distill and rigorously argue for a novel ontological principle: “1=N”. This principle posits that, in the fundamental order of existence, cognition, and reference, the whole as a unified entity at a specific functional level (1) is logically prior to the collection of its parts (N). The key advancements of this paper are: 1) Explicitly embedding “stratification” as an intrinsic property of “1,” proposing that reality is recursively constituted by “1”s at different levels; 2) Introducing the concept of “parsing” as the universal mechanism generating determinate phenomena (a specific “1”) from the potential whole (N), thereby offering a clear resolution to puzzles like quantum measurement; and 3) Actively engaging “1=N” with contemporary relational ontology and decoherence theory, establishing it as a precise, operational framework for holism. Originating from quantum conundrums, this principle provides a unified and robust philosophical foundation for understanding everything from microscopic particles to life and social systems.
Metaphysics, as discipline dealing with the most fundamental aspects of reality, studies the essence of entities, leaving to particular sciences the study of empirical, specific, changeable and unstable aspects. In this sense metaphysics is close to ontology, tackling problems as the existence of God, the being in himself, the immortality of consciousness, the origin and meaning of the universe. Speculative physics pushes its interest to metaphysical questions too, both at atechnical (mathematical) level, and at the level of thought (in relation to philosophy). In recentyears interesting concepts and ideas have been considered and developed, involving the latest unified quantum-relativistic theories and the consequences on reality deriving from them.The search for a meaning of life, one of Anscombe’s themes, finds ferment in the search for meaning about the existence of our universe in itself and as a possible part of a multiverse containing it.The problem of measurement in quantum mechanics appears from the application of themathematical formalism to macroscopic situations and the central position of the observer in this process has produced a deviation towards a metaphysical subjectivism. There are controversial aspects about the role of consciousness in the process of reducing the wave function of quantum mechanics. This narrows the field of validity of some fundamental principles during the interaction between microsystems and macrosystems, with consequent diversification of thedefinition of the ontological state of consciousness and reality. (Local) holism has often been linked to Wittgenstein. From Wittgenstein’s answers to the paradoxes of communication and conceptual relativism, a tension emerges in his vision of linguistic games and in his mental experiments, traditionally interpreted in contrasting ways. This tension can be better understoodthrough some reflections by Wittgenstein on Einstein and his theory of relativity.
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.
This comprehensive paper presents a unified synthesis of quantum mechanics, particle physics, and cosmological implications, establishing a coherent ontological framework for understanding the fundamental structure of matter and its relationship to mortality and consciousness. We establish that reality operates through a clear hierarchical structure: from fundamental particles (electrons, photons, quarks) to composite particles (protons, neutrons) to bound systems (atoms, molecules) to classical structures (matter, life, consciousness). Central to this work is the distinction between stable quantum objects (particularly electrons) and mortal composite structures (nuclei, atoms, molecules). We present an interpretive framework in which electrons are entities of extraordinary stability that perpetually embody wave-particle duality without requiring actualization into classical point particles. Measurement outcomes emerge from entanglement-induced decoherence involving third quantum objects rather than wave-function collapse, preserving unitary evolution throughout. This framework builds upon and extends established decoherence theory, particularly the work of Zurek, while offering a more explicit ontological commitment to persistent duality as an intrinsic electron property. Electron stability is qualified accurately: electrons are protected from decay under the conditions prevailing in our matter-dominated universe. In matter-antimatter environments, electron-positron annihilation does occur. The framework maintains consistency with the Born rule, empirical evidence, and existing quantum mechanical predictions while providing ontological clarity regarding the nature of reality
In the late 1920s, Niels Bohr’s "Principle of Complementarity" became a cornerstone of the Copenhagen interpretation, asserting that the wave and particle aspects of micro-entities are mutually exclusive yet complementary properties manifested under distinct experimental arrangements. However, this classical-bound formulation inadvertently entangled quantum physics in a century-long ontological debate over what a microscopic system "really is." This paper presents a counterfactual historical and philosophical critique: had Bohr bypassed the binary framing of wave-particle duality and instead posited the Law of Coexisting Mutually Exclusive Descriptions—which dictates that a single physical system fundamentally possesses multiple, irreducible, and mutually exclusive descriptions simultaneously—the foundational paradigm of quantum mechanics would have undergone a decisive transformation. Under this proposed paradigm, the focus of quantum physics shifts from seeking a singular underlying "substance" to mapping how non-commutative, coexisting descriptions collectively construct physical reality. We demonstrate how this law redefines the quantum measurement problem, dissolves the misconception of "uncertainty" as an inherent ontological vagueness, and provides a unified conceptual framework for quantum entanglement and emergent spacetime in modern field theory. Ultimately, this work establishes a non-reductionist "Multitudinous Description Realism" that offers a clearer conceptual tool for contemporary quantum foundations and quantum information science.
Great revolutions in the study of nature in the past century have brought forth an onslaught of philosophical complications to the clarity of the classical perspective to which natural science was espoused prior to the twentieth century. The objective, intuitive principles by which we determined the reality of the world were beset by the ontological implications that flowed out of quantum mechanics and relativistic law. Wary of philosophical problems, a great number of the physical sciences lodge themselves in the comfort of empirical dogmatism as its only means of progression. But in light of the success of quantum systems, the ambiguity that buds must be taken into greater consideration. This paper discusses the background, development, objections, and interpretations of quantum mechanics and concurrent ontological premises to argue that such a philosophical tenet is inherent to nature, and, as such, is capable of producing results and predictions consistent with its physical and mathematical counterparts. To do so, the properties of measurement and the premises of causality are treated in terms of their physical terminology and foundations. The frameworks of Carroll, Everett, Heisenberg, Popper, and others analyze established interpretations and abstractions of quantum mechanics; its ties to the metaphysical and ontological descriptions of an existing entity are explored by means of the contrived spacetime allegory, which in principle determines the parameters that bound real systems. It is evident that ontological accounts for physical phenomena are not only viable and admissible but are necessary as our ability to describe the universe surpasses our ability to test and quantify these descriptions. These realizations allow us to better understand our world and move beyond empirical data when it is technologically unattainable, enabling us to build on statistical bases and approach the structure of realism through its essence of ambiguity.
Introduction The central claim of this book is that all intentional phenomena are quantum mechanical. That goes both for the private thoughts inside our heads and for public or collective intentions like norms, culture, and language, which we might generically call institutions. I suggested in Chapter 1 that by virtue of their dependence on consciousness, a classical, materialist ontology cannot explain these phenomena, and as such from that perspective they must be epiphenomenal or illusions. In the rest of this book I show that a quantum, panpsychist ontology can provide a physical basis for what we all know to be true, which is that both private and collective intentions are part of the natural order. The elementary parts of social ontology are human beings in their biological individuality, which in this Part I consider in abstraction from their lived social contexts. By taking humans out of their natural habitat I aim to focus attention on what we bring to the social table simply by virtue of being organisms of a certain kind. The abstract individual is a common enough starting point in classical social theory (think Hobbes and the state of nature). However, it might seem an odd place to begin a quantum social theory, given the holism of quantum phenomena, both “all the way down” in having no elementary parts, and “all the way across” in universal non-locality. What look like separate organisms are just local decoherence effects of quantum fields; everything really is related to everything else. In that light the abstract individual appears not just as an abstraction, but as positively occluding what “the individual” really is. However, there is a difference between what is true of a universal ontology and what is practically relevant to specifically socialontologies, which are constrained by the properties of their constituent organisms. Unlike some organisms, humans live in highly interdependent societies, and most of what is interesting about us is socially constituted as well.