This accepted manuscript is structurally governed by THE META-INDEX (Zenodo DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18169167) Modern quantum mechanics represents an unprecedented computational success in the history of physics, predicting the outcomes of subatomic processes with extraordinary accuracy. Despite this mathematical precision, however, the ontological status of quantum phenomena remains unresolved. This work argues that quantum mechanics correctly describes how systems behave, but fails to explain what quantum phenomena actually are. Concepts such as uncertainty, probability, and superposition are shown to be epistemic constructs—tools that describe incomplete transitions rather than fundamental properties of reality. Through a series of thought experiments and an A–B transition framework, this paper proposes that quantum phenomena should be understood as a constrained and harmonious transition regime between potentiality (A) and realized outcome (B). In this view, quantum is not a domain of indeterminacy, but the physics of becoming: a regulated ontological interval in which outcomes have not yet formed, rather than existing in an indeterminate state. This reinterpretation offers a coherent ontological foundation for quantum mechanics without invoking intrinsic randomness or observer-dependent reality.
This accepted manuscript is structurally governed by THE META-INDEX (Zenodo DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18169167) Modern quantum mechanics represents an unprecedented computational success in the history of physics, predicting the outcomes of subatomic processes with extraordinary accuracy. Despite this mathematical precision, however, the ontological status of quantum phenomena remains unresolved. This work argues that quantum mechanics correctly describes how systems behave, but fails to explain what quantum phenomena actually are. Concepts such as uncertainty, probability, and superposition are shown to be epistemic constructs—tools that describe incomplete transitions rather than fundamental properties of reality. Through a series of thought experiments and an A–B transition framework, this paper proposes that quantum phenomena should be understood as a constrained and harmonious transition regime between potentiality (A) and realized outcome (B). In this view, quantum is not a domain of indeterminacy, but the physics of becoming: a regulated ontological interval in which outcomes have not yet formed, rather than existing in an indeterminate state. This reinterpretation offers a coherent ontological foundation for quantum mechanics without invoking intrinsic randomness or observer-dependent reality.
Quantum mechanics is among the most successful mathematical frameworks in modern science, providing precise predictions, experimental validation, and wide-ranging technological applications. This success, however, has been accompanied by a long-standing suspension of a fundamental question: the ontological status of quantum itself. While dominant approaches emphasize how quantum phenomena behave, the question of what these behaviors are the behavior of has largely been deferred. This work does not propose a new physical theory, nor does it challenge the empirical or mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Instead, it offers an ontological positioning that reintroduces the question of ground. Quantum is approached neither as a discrete object nor as a purely mathematical formalism, but as the joint mode of operation of energy, nature, and consciousness. Within this framework, consciousness is not treated as an external causal agent acting upon physical systems, but as an immanent, organizing, and meaning-generating aspect of energetic continuity. Differentiation is thus located not in nature itself, but at the level of meaning. Observation and measurement are reinterpreted accordingly, not as mechanisms of physical collapse, but as processes through which ontological distinctions become articulated. By reframing quantum as a ground rather than a thing, this study aims to clarify persistent conceptual tensions—such as the observer problem and the status of measurement—without invoking speculative physics or metaphysical dualism. The paper presents not a solution, but a repositioning: an invitation to reconsider the ontological assumptions that guide contemporary readings of quantum mechanics.
One of the still unresolved problems in modern physics is the conceptual gap between quantum mechanics and Newtonian classical physics. Quantum mechanics describes probabilistic and indeterminate systems, whereas classical physics describes stable and deterministic systems. This article proposes a preliminary ontological and philosophical framework to interpret the transition from the quantum to the classical state through the Theory of Quantum-Classical Crossover (TQCC). Rather than considering the two regimes as fundamentally distinct, the theory suggests they are stages of a single process: the gradual formation of physical reality from a state whose physical properties are not yet defined. The quantum-classical crossover is therefore not merely mathematical, but ontological. Although decoherence and coarse-graining are well-established mathematical formalisms, the Theory of Quantum-Classical Crossover provides a conceptual bridge between quantum indeterminacy and classical stability. It employs philosophical concepts as visual aids and integrates ideas such as Heisenberg’s potentia, Wheeler’s It from Bit, and Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics, suggesting that the binary state of matter is not only expected, but necessary. This ontological perspective may provide a conceptual bridge for understanding quantum-to-classical transitions beyond purely mathematical descriptions.
The present paper interprets quantum mechanics within the ontological framework of the Theory of Consciousness. The Theory posits consciousness as the sole ontological reality, formally described as a topological space, and derives all physical phenomena as manifestations of the local knowledge of the observer. Within this framework the five principal phenomena of quantum mechanics —superposition, wave-function collapse, the uncertainty principle, quantization, and entanglement — are shown to arise necessarily from the axiomatic ontological chain of consciousness without introducing new postulates. Quantum indeterminacy is reinterpreted not as a fundamental property of matter but as a structural limitation of the observer’s local knowledge. The Planck constant is identified with the minimum resolvable change of the knowledge structure of the quantum observer. The conceptual paradoxes of quantum mechanics—the measurement problem, non-locality, and the probabilistic nature of results — dissolve once consciousness is restored as the ontological foundation.
Abstract Quantum mechanics is our most successful and versatile account of the basic constituents of matter, of their interaction and of their compounds. We introduce the theory via a sketch of its history and lay out its mathematical structure in some detail. Before this background we address the important and controversial question of how to interpret that structure. We contextualise our own position, which is linked to our account of ontological emergence as detailed in Chap. 2 , and which is mathematically best expressed in the Heisenberg picture of quantum dynamics. Indeterminism and irreversible processes are fundamental for our approach. We discuss the dialectics of the deterministic challenge to our position and argue that indeterminism in the form of quantum randomness has turned from a philosophical riddle to a technological resource. This claim is supported by a discussion of quantum information science, including some of its basic protocols. Towards the end of the chapter we argue that agency and quantum mechanics come as a package deal. For one, quantum mechanics describes the world as offering open possibilities for the future at a fundamental physical level, which is needed for real higher-order organisation, including agency. Of course, this does not in any way show that the actual existence of agents in our world is guaranteed. But it does show that general agency scepticism has no basis in physics. Second, we show that quantum mechanics is best understood as a theory that describes our agential interactions with nature, and not as a theory that represents nature from the point of view of an inert, detached observer.
Quantum mechanics is often regarded as paradoxical or incomplete due to the imposition of a classical ontology that is not suited to its domain. This paper proposes a reinterpretation based on the notion of contextual coherence, in which the quantum state is not an intrinsic property but a relational configuration dependent on interaction conditions. Measurement is thus understood as a regime transition characterized by phase fixation and the dispersion of coherence into the environment. Within this framework, the Résonon is introduced as a minimal conceptual unit articulating energy, information, and temporal phase. It does not constitute a new physical entity but serves as a theoretical tool to express the internal logic of coherence transitions. This approach allows for a reformulation of superposition, contextuality, and decoherence without invoking additional assumptions such as many worlds or hidden variables. Finally, the paper opens an epistemological dialogue with operative knowledge systems such as Ifá, highlighting a convergence around the notion of preparing reality. Quantum mechanics thus emerges as a theory of coherence regimes in transition, where reality stabilizes through contextual configurations rather than as a set of pre-existing objects.
Abstract This work presents a structural ontology of quantum mechanics grounded in the limits of formal description, rather than in interpretative models. Instead of proposing a new interpretation, modification of equations, or metaphysical extension, the text identifies a missing structural layer implicitly assumed by quantum theory: the necessity of filtration in systems operating beyond formal completeness. Drawing on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems as a structural precedent, the analysis reframes core quantum phenomena — superposition, collapse, entanglement, uncertainty, and wave–particle duality — as expressions of constrained potential rather than paradoxical physical behavior. Quantum mechanics is shown to operate in a pre-physical regime, describing admissible possibilities prior to enforced resolution, while classical physics describes the outcome of irreversible constraint. From this perspective, collapse is not caused by observation, randomness, or consciousness, but by saturation of coherence under applied constraints. Uncertainty emerges as a logical consequence of non-coexistent descriptions within a single formal frame, rather than as an epistemic limitation. The work then generalizes this framework beyond physics, demonstrating that entropy, irreversibility, and systemic collapse arise when systems continue operating beyond their Gödelian limits without a heuristic capable of recognizing formal exhaustion. This leads to a distinction between reintegrative (pre-Gödel) entropy and residual (post-Gödel) entropy regimes, with implications for computation, cognition, artificial systems, and large-scale systemic viability. This document is descriptive, not prescriptive.It introduces no implementations and proposes no cosmological mechanisms.Its contribution is the explicit articulation of structural constraints that any coherent physical or systemic description must satisfy.