Modern physical theories employ mathematical frameworks describing states, interactions, symmetries, and information with remarkable predictive success. Yet these frameworks often begin from conceptual assumptions that may already lie downstream from deeper structural conditions of physical reality. States assume persistence, interactions assume identifiable relata, and measurement assumes observers capable of registering outcomes. This paper proposes an alternative conceptual starting point based on resonant process. Rather than treating states or interactions as primitive, we suggest that persistent patterns of process arise through selective compatibility and reinforcement within ongoing dynamics. From this perspective, state descriptions and interaction descriptions emerge as complementary projections of stabilized resonant structure, while observation arises when resonant processes stabilize discriminable differences within subsystems capable of participating in further interaction. The purpose of this work is not to present a completed mathematical theory but to articulate a conceptual framework and the structural requirements that any future resonance-based formalism would need to satisfy. The approach connects naturally with existing ideas in quantum foundations, symmetry theory, and information-based interpretations of physics.
Modern physical theories employ mathematical frameworks describing states, interactions, symmetries, and information with remarkable predictive success. Yet these frameworks often begin from conceptual assumptions that may already lie downstream from deeper structural conditions of physical reality. States assume persistence, interactions assume identifiable relata, and measurement assumes observers capable of registering outcomes. This paper proposes an alternative conceptual starting point based on resonant process. Rather than treating states or interactions as primitive, we suggest that persistent patterns of process arise through selective compatibility and reinforcement within ongoing dynamics. From this perspective, state descriptions and interaction descriptions emerge as complementary projections of stabilized resonant structure, while observation arises when resonant processes stabilize discriminable differences within subsystems capable of participating in further interaction. The purpose of this work is not to present a completed mathematical theory but to articulate a conceptual framework and the structural requirements that any future resonance-based formalism would need to satisfy. The approach connects naturally with existing ideas in quantum foundations, symmetry theory, and information-based interpretations of 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 presents a foundational principle of the Emergent Reality Model: reality is not the realization of all possible states, but the result of a selective stabilization process. The model proposes that observable states emerge only when specific structural and informational compatibility conditions are satisfied. These conditions arise from three interconnected elements: information flow, topological constraints, and resonance (phase alignment). Instead of treating reality as a static set of states, the model interprets it as a dynamic process in which only a subset of configurations can persist. States that do not meet compatibility requirements are naturally excluded and never stabilize. This perspective introduces a selection mechanism that complements existing physical descriptions of state spaces and their evolution. It provides a conceptual framework that unifies ideas from physics, information theory, and topology, and suggests that stability, time, and observable structures are emergent consequences of this selection process. The work distinguishes between elements consistent with current scientific understanding, working hypotheses, and speculative extensions, forming a structured basis for further theoretical and empirical investigation. Part of the "Emergent Reality Project" Conceptual development by the author. Analytical structuring and refinement supported by AI tools.
Quantum mechanics is often perceived as conceptually paradoxical because it appears to conflict with deeply rooted intuitions about fixed reality, determinism, and observation. This paper does not propose a new physical theory. Instead, it offers an epistemological reframing of quantum mechanics: not as a direct mathematical unveiling of a fully fixed pre-existing reality, but as a highly precise description of phenomenological structures emerging through observational conditions and interaction. The paper explores: the distinction between mathematical predictive success and ontological completeness, the role of human perception in constructing “fixed reality” intuitions, the phenomenological nature of qualities such as color and temperature, the possibility that some conceptual tensions in quantum mechanics arise from assumptions inherited from macroscopic cognition, and how quantum theory may be interpreted as describing observable structures rather than fixed hidden states. The work intentionally avoids mystical, anti-scientific, or consciousness-centric interpretations of quantum mechanics. It does not deny the existence of reality, nor reject modern physics. Rather, it attempts to clarify what exactly mathematical models are describing when applied to quantum phenomena. This text is positioned as a conceptual and phenomenological reorganization of perspective — a small doorway toward reconsidering how humans frame “reality” itself.
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 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
Zero Subjectivity Physics presents a foundations-level framework that removes subjectivity from the base ontology of physical theory while preserving the full operational role of observation. Modern physics successfully predicts what systems do, yet foundational discussions often reintroduce subjectivity—explicitly or implicitly—through observer primacy, awareness, or experiential assumptions. This paper argues that such moves are unnecessary and stem from an inherited anthropomorphic interpretation of observation rather than from physical necessity. In this framework, observation is treated as an operational regime: a physically instantiated pattern of constrained dynamics and information flow that can arise wherever certain stability, memory, self-reference, and latency conditions are satisfied. Observation is not owned by a subject, localized at a privileged vantage point, or endowed with intrinsic awareness. Like light, it is defined entirely by what it does, not by what it is. Duality and non-duality are reframed as observer-dependent descriptive modes applied to the same underlying physical processes, rather than as competing ontologies. Subjectivity, if it arises at all, is treated as a higher-level organizational feature of certain systems, not as a primitive ingredient of physical law. The framework is compatible with classical mechanics, relativity, quantum theory, decoherence-based measurement theory, and operational or relational approaches, while taking a stronger stance against any foundational role for subjectivity. By enforcing zero subjectivity at the base level, the paper clarifies the physics–philosophy boundary, dissolves persistent observer paradoxes, and constrains consciousness-first interpretations without denying the reality of observers as physical systems.