Quantum mechanics is empirically extraordinarily successful yet continues to admit a wide range of competing interpretations. While the formalism constrains probabilistic relations between preparation procedures, measurements, and outcomes, it does not uniquely determine the ontology that realises those relations. Interpretations such as Everettian quantum mechanics, Bohmian mechanics, objective collapse theories, relational quantum mechanics, and QBist approaches preserve the predictive structure of the theory while diverging sharply in their metaphysical commitments. At the same time, developments within quantum theory itself weaken the classical ontology of independently existing objects with intrinsic properties. Entanglement, violations of Bell inequalities, and decoherence theory collectively support the view that physical description is fundamentally relational. Structural realism therefore provides a natural interpretive framework, treating the mathematical structure of physical theory as ontologically primary. However, structural realism alone leaves open the question of instantiation: how relational organisation becomes concrete as a determinate world.This paper develops Experiential Structural Ontology (ESO) as a non-interventionist interpretation of quantum mechanics that addresses this problem. ESO retains the relational ontology suggested by quantum theory while proposing that relational constraint organisation is enacted as manifestation within a fundamental experiential field. On this interpretation, the wavefunction represents relational constraint architecture governing transitions within this field, measurement corresponds to the stabilisation of particular regimes within that structure, and decoherence explains the emergence of classical stability without invoking collapse dynamics or ontological branching.
Quantum mechanics is empirically extraordinarily successful yet continues to admit a wide range of competing interpretations. While the formalism constrains probabilistic relations between preparation procedures, measurements, and outcomes, it does not uniquely determine the ontology that realises those relations. Interpretations such as Everettian quantum mechanics, Bohmian mechanics, objective collapse theories, relational quantum mechanics, and QBist approaches preserve the predictive structure of the theory while diverging sharply in their metaphysical commitments. At the same time, developments within quantum theory itself weaken the classical ontology of independently existing objects with intrinsic properties. Entanglement, violations of Bell inequalities, and decoherence theory collectively support the view that physical description is fundamentally relational. Structural realism therefore provides a natural interpretive framework, treating the mathematical structure of physical theory as ontologically primary. However, structural realism alone leaves open the question of instantiation: how relational organisation becomes concrete as a determinate world.This paper develops Experiential Structural Ontology (ESO) as a non-interventionist interpretation of quantum mechanics that addresses this problem. ESO retains the relational ontology suggested by quantum theory while proposing that relational constraint organisation is enacted as manifestation within a fundamental experiential field. On this interpretation, the wavefunction represents relational constraint architecture governing transitions within this field, measurement corresponds to the stabilisation of particular regimes within that structure, and decoherence explains the emergence of classical stability without invoking collapse dynamics or ontological branching.
This monograph develops and defends Experiential Structural Ontology (ESO), a metaphysical framework constrained by contemporary physics. The framework begins from a tension in contemporary physics: quantum theory replaces classical objecthood with nonseparable relational structure, and several approaches to quantum gravity reconstruct spacetime from deeper organisational relations. Structural realism captures this shift in physical description, yet it leaves open how such structure exists as a concrete world. ESO proposes that experiential manifestation provides a minimal ontological ground capable of rendering relational structure determinate as concrete occurrence. Experience is not introduced as a psychological posit. It names the mode in which relational organisation is present as determinate occurrence. Consciousness, understood as experiential manifestation, is primitive in this limited sense. Physical reality is interpreted as stable constraint architecture enacted within experiential occurrence. The framework draws its constraints from experimentally established quantum nonseparability and decoherence together with research programmes that model spacetime as emergent from deeper relational organisation. These constraints are used to assess leading foundational positions. Several leading positions preserve relational description yet do not fully account for the transition from formal structure to concrete manifestation. ESO proposes that this instantiation deficit can be addressed without appeal to hidden substrates, quiddities, or additional primitive laws. Within this account, physical laws function as stability constraints on experiential transition. Objects and spacetime are interpreted as dynamically stabilised organisational structures, and subjects as individuated streams of integrated experiential organisation. The hard problem of consciousness is recast as a question concerning the organisation of experiential structure under physical constraint. ESO develops the relational commitments of structural realism within an explicit ontological framework that addresses the grounding demands imposed by contemporary physics while retaining full empirical discipline.
This paper presents a philosophical analysis of quantum mechanics, the measurement problem, the observer problem, decoherence, and quantum interpretation. It argues that the central difficulty in quantum mechanics is not only technical but interpretive: the theory has extraordinary predictive power without a single settled account of what is happening physically or ontologically. The paper frames this as an answerability problem, asking how interpretations should be judged when formal success outruns explanatory closure. It separates several meanings of observation—interaction, coupling, record formation, information update, and conscious awareness—and shows how collapsing these layers creates confusion in both physics and philosophy. It then compares major interpretations including Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, Bohmian mechanics, objective collapse, QBism, relational quantum mechanics, and consistent histories, treating them as different ways of stabilizing explanatory burden around an underconstrained formal core. The paper also argues that decoherence is crucial for understanding record stability and the appearance of classicality, but does not by itself solve the single-outcome problem. Overall, the paper offers a clear framework for thinking about quantum foundations, scientific explanation, ontology, observation, and philosophy of science without overstating what current theory can responsibly claim.
Quantum mechanics has transformed our understanding of reality, yet deep philosophical puzzles remain unresolved. Is there a consistent way to describe quantum measurement, the emergence of space and time, and the role of observers within one coherent ontology? This paper introduces Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD), an interpretation that places relationships and information, not isolated objects, at the foundation of physics. Unlike traditional views, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, Everett's many-worlds theory, or hidden-variable approaches, RQD denies a single observer-independent reality, instead proposing that facts only become definite within specific observational contexts. It explicitly addresses foundational no-go results, including Bell's theorem, the Kochen-Specker theorem, and the Frauchiger-Renner paradox, by replacing absolute facts with relational, context-dependent truths. RQD rests on five interlocking principles: (1) quantum states are contextual and observer-relative, (2) time emerges from quantum interactions rather than existing as an external parameter, (3) space is constructed from patterns of quantum entanglement, (4) observers emerge as systems with highly integrated information, and (5) classical reality appears through quantum decoherence without special wavefunction collapse. Philosophically, RQD aligns with ontic structural realism, proposing that the fundamental ontology of the universe consists entirely of informational relations. It avoids collapsing into relativism or solipsism by ensuring intersubjective agreement through physical interactions. Ultimately, RQD may offer a unified picture in which quantum mechanics, spacetime, and observers are no longer separate domains but aspects of one interconnected informational web.
As far as classical physics is concerned, it is possible to trace causal relations between physical objects (i.e. particles in this case) back to intrinsic properties of these objects (such as their mass and charge). On this view, causal relations turn out to be internal instead of external relations, supervening on intrinsic properties of the relata (as proposed by Heil and Lowe). However, one can raise doubts about this view already in Newtonian mechanics. The decisive blow to this view comes from quantum physics, with Bell’s theorem proving that no dynamics based on local, intrinsic properties of quantum objects can yield the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, quantum entanglement by no means implies that we have to abandon an ontology of objects (i.e. substances such as particles) in favour of an ontology of structures (as claimed by French and Ladyman). Any of the known proposals for a quantum ontology of matter in space-time is committed to objects. However, on any of these proposals, what determines the dynamics of these objects are not local, intrinsic properties, but a global or holistic property instantiated by all the objects together – that is, a structure that takes all the objects in the universe as its relata. The view set out in this paper thus amounts to combining ontic structural realism with an ontology of objects that can be conceived as substances. This suggestion is illustrated by drawing on the ontology of quantum physics worked out by Bohm and Bell. 1.
Quantum Incompleteness presents an ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics in which physical systems are objectively under-specified prior to irreversible interaction. The theory rejects hidden variables, parallel worlds, and observer-dependent collapse, proposing instead that definite outcomes emerge through irreversible information-theoretic constraints that physically exclude alternatives. The wavefunction is treated as a real but non-material structural entity that defines the space of admissible outcomes rather than pre-existing values. Measurement, entanglement, classical definiteness, and the arrow of time are unified under a single completion mechanism grounded in thermodynamic irreversibility, while preserving the standard mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. This work is empirically equivalent to standard quantum theory and is intended as a foundational clarification of what quantum mechanics describes rather than a modification of how it computes predictions.
Quantum mechanics has transformed our understanding of reality, yet deep philosophical puzzles remain unresolved. Is there a consistent way to describe quantum measurement, the emergence of space and time, and the role of observers within one coherent ontology? This paper introduces Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD), an interpretation that places relationships and information—not isolated objects—at the foundation of physics. Unlike traditional views, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, Everett’s many-worlds theory, or hidden-variable approaches, RQD denies a single observer-independent reality, instead proposing that facts only become definite within specific observational contexts. It explicitly addresses foundational no-go results, including Bell’s theorem, the Kochen–Specker theorem, and the Frauchiger–Renner paradox, by replacing absolute facts with relational, context-dependent truths. RQD rests on five interlocking principles: (1) quantum states are contextual and observer-relative, (2) time emerges from quantum interactions rather than existing as an external parameter, (3) space is constructed from patterns of quantum entanglement, (4) observers emerge as systems with highly integrated information, and (5) classical reality appears through quantum decoherence without special wavefunction collapse. Philosophically, RQD aligns with ontic structural realism, proposing that the fundamental ontology of the universe consists entirely of informational relations. It avoids collapsing into relativism or solipsism by ensuring intersubjective agreement through physical interactions. Ultimately, RQD may offer a unified picture in which quantum mechanics, spacetime, and observers are no longer separate domains but aspects of one interconnected informational web.