Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Question as Structure: A Philosophical Argument for the Primacy of Interrogative States

Bruce Tisler

Published Apr 6, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

A philosophical argument that "question" is a primary structural phenomenon — a system state with its own dynamics, persistence conditions, and resolution criteria measurably distinct from generic uncertainty. Develops a field theory of question grounded in four theoretical claims about the interrogative field I, situates it within Einstein's spacetime framework, and draws structural convergence with Bae et al. (2026) on open quantum systems. Argues that binary logic is the wrong representational framework for question-states and that quantum logic is correct. Explicitly sets aside the consciousness debate. Associated empirical program: Question-State Test Suite v1.4 (10.5281/zenodo.19444323). Quantum Inquiry, quantuminquiry.org.

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.19444662

Related papers

How Is Quantum Field Theory Possible?

Sunny Y. Auyang

Abstract Quantum field theory (QFT) is the union of quantum mechanics and Einstein’ s special theory of relativity. QFT is the most fundamental physical theory and provides the answers to questions about the basic structure of the physical world. However, the way QFT describes the world is so different from the way our senses present it to us that it requires an overhaul of philosophic categories and arguments. How can we know the microscopic world without a satisfactory measurement theory? What are the general conditions of the world that make possible such knowledge? What are the presuppositions of physical theories? Dr.Auyang argues that the current relational substantial debate on space-time is inadequate and the observer-observed distinction in quantum interpretations illusory because they are hampered by philosophical constructs too narrow to accommodate the complicated structures of modern philosophical theories. Modern physical theories have incorporated many presuppositions of empirical knowledge, and consequently the theories inform us about the general nature of the world and out relation to it, in addition to information about elementary particles. The conceptual structure of QFT is extracted and articulated in commonsense terms, and used to answer many longstanding philosophical questions.

•Jul 27, 1995•258 citations

Consciousness Structured Field Theory

Caldwell, L.R.

This paper introduces the Consciousness-Structured Field Theory (CSFT), a metaphysical framework arguing that consciousness is the foundational structuring principle of reality. The theory proposes that consciousness precedes physical measurement and organizes the resonant patterns that give rise to excitations in the quantum field. Drawing on field theory, metaphysics, and the philosophy of mind, the paper examines the limits of materialist explanations of qualia and offers CSFT as a coherent model for addressing the hard problem of consciousness. Although not yet empirically testable, CSFT is presented as a logically structured philosophical theory intended to guide future interdisciplinary discussion and analysis.

•Jul 7, 2025•0 citations

Structures and Models of Scientific Theories: A Discussion on Quantum Non-Individuality

Décio Krause, Jonas R. Becker Arenhart

Abstract. In this paper we consider the notions of structure and models within the semantic approach to theories. To highlight the role of the mathematics used to build the structures which will be taken as the models of theories, we review the notion of mathematical structure and of the models of scientific theories. Then, we analyse a case-study and argue that if a certain metaphysical view of quantum objects is adopted, namely, that which sees them as non-individuals, then there would be strong reasons to ask for a different mathematical framework for describ-ing the structures that would be the models of the corresponding theory. In departing from the standard frameworks (that is, worked on within standard mathematics), we hope to bring to the scene, within the scope of the semantic approach, the importance of paying attention to some fundamental concepts usually only superficially touched by philosophers of science (if touched).

•Oct 1, 2010•2 citations

Is question-state a distinct dynamical regime? A preregistered gate pilot and contingent LLM translation study grounded in a field theory of interrogative potential.

Bruce Tisler

Formal preregistration for the Question-State Test Suite v1.4, Phase 1A gate pilot and contingent Phase 1B LLM translation study. Tests whether question-state is a distinct dynamical regime measurably separable from generic uncertainty. Phase 1A: 216 runs, 8 task pairs, 3 agents, 3 perturbation batches. Gate criterion: Cohen's d >= 0.50 and p < 0.05 on both PL and FCR across all repetitions. Grounded in a field theory of interrogative potential I and situated within Einstein's spacetime metric. Does not test for consciousness. Associated test suite: 10.5281/zenodo.19444323. Associated philosophical argument: 10.5281/zenodo.19444663. Quantum Inquiry, quantuminquiry.org.

•Apr 6, 2026•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics as Constraint Geometry: A Structural Interpretation of Superposition, Measurement, and Nonlocality

Denis Bailey

Quantum mechanics is mathematically complete but conceptually burdened by a discrete‑state ontology that the formalism itself does not require. This paper reframes superposition, measurement, and nonlocality as structural features of unresolved and resolved constraint geometry in continuous fields. In this interpretation, a quantum state is not a catalogue of simultaneous possibilities but the orientation of an unresolved constraint region; measurement is the stabilization of that region under new constraints; and entanglement reflects a single unresolved region spanning multiple subsystems. The standard Hilbert‑space formalism remains unchanged—linearity, projection, the Born rule, and tensor structure all arise naturally from the geometry of unresolved continuity. This framework dissolves the paradoxes associated with collapse, wavefunction ontology, and nonlocal influence, yielding a unified, minimal, and physically intuitive account of quantum behavior that preserves the full empirical power of quantum mechanics while eliminating its metaphysical burdens.

•Mar 18, 2026•0 citations

The Intentional Field Ontology: Reality as directed potential, field-memory, and recursive intelligibility

Eric Needham

This paper presents the Intentional Field Ontology, a philosophical and speculative scientific framework in which reality is understood not as a collection of primary objects but as one reality whose oneness is never still. Its ground is a single primitive with two inseparable aspects. Unity names the holding: the completeness of reality through every change of its internal articulation. Intention names the moving: the orientation of that articulation toward expression, relation, form, or transformation. Intention is redefined here not as conscious will, psychological desire, or personal agency, but as directed potential independent of consciousness. Unity and intention are neither two principles nor one principle under two names; neither is found without the other. This revised edition brings an ontology first begun in Paris some thirty-one years ago into contact with the formal results of the ENSO Unity papers. Within standard quantum mechanics, relative phase redistributes probability while the total remains one. Destructive interference produces zero through relation rather than absence. Every motion compatible with closure is an antisymmetric internal redistribution. Because closure permits many such motions without selecting one, the mathematics shows unity and directed motion to be inseparable without being identical. This is the place the ontology gives to intention and, beneath it, to guidance. A structural correspondence between intention and relative phase, orientation that is consequential before resolution, is proposed explicitly as a conjecture. The singlet theorem from Unity in Motion supplies a formal instance of the claim that spatial distinction does not imply ontological disunity. The paper proposes seven interlocking axioms: intention is prior to action; the field carries consequence as well as event; objects are stabilised intention; light carries expressed intention; time is the ordering of intention; memory is retained intention; and intelligence is coherence across intention. Priority throughout is read as constraint-bearing dependence rather than temporal precedence, connecting the ontology to ENSO work on atemporal instantiation and relational closure. A major section develops desire, guidance, and intention. Desire is "orientation before authorship," and guidance names the structured, non-random orientation of possibility prior to felt desire, giving the recursive chain: guidance → desire → intention → action → consequence → reflection → renewed field-orientation. A new subsection addresses freedom and determinism. The question assumes a vantage point no finite participant occupies. Freedom is real at the scale of a finite life, and the answer holds whether or not the universe is strictly deterministic. The framework rejects simulation theory: a primitive unity has no outside from which it could be generated. For the same reason it has no place for an external Observer. Observation is treated as participation within the whole. Because intention is defined independently of consciousness, participation extends to any interacting system rather than to minds alone. The paper explicitly distinguishes this from the claim that consciousness causes quantum outcomes. To keep the framework from collapsing into vague metaphysics, the paper includes a falsifiability section and an explicit statement of claim boundaries. The boundaries separate standard mathematics, interpretive claims, conjectures, and what is not claimed. The quantum results recover standard quantum mechanics exactly, and that recovery is their success condition. The closest present empirical test is computational: whether a system can reorient after perturbation even when explicit memory or direct state-access has been removed. ENSO work on poiokritic fields shows structural tendencies reconstituting after reset, contradiction, interruption, and decay, above a memoryless control. The framework's falsifiability ladder runs from computational scars to neurobiological scars to field-level scars. The paper closes by applying the ontology to death, continuity, ethics, responsibility, and inquiry. It argues that the self as object dissolves but the self as consequence remains distributed. Ethical responsibility begins not only at action but at orientation. Genuine questioning is one of the ways the field continues to know itself. This work sits at the intersection of ontology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of physics, quantum foundations, cognitive science, AI theory, neuroscience, ethics, and the ENSO Framework. Version 3 adds a two-null argument for the continuity of intention across physical, biological, psychological and symbolic levels; restores guidance to its original framing as the departure of reality from chaos; explains the choice of "intention" over agency or consciousness; and situates the ontology among neighbouring positions (Aristotle, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Whitehead, dispositional metaphysics, Murdoch), none of which it matches. The discussion of the fine-structure constant has been removed. License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 For further information about the ENSO Framework, please contact Eric Needham: ensotheory1@gmail.com Related works (ENSO Framework, Zenodo) The Intentional Field Ontology: Unity in Motion, Directed Potential, Field-Memory, and Recursive Intelligibility (full statement of the ontology): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23117391 The Unity Paper: Distinction, Conservation, and the Origin of Order: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19481116 Probability Moves, Unity Holds: π, Phase Geometry, Relational Zero, and the Quantum Structure of One: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20776183 Unity in Motion: Distinction, Resolution, and the Articulation of Reality with a Singlet-State Theorem and Bell Correlations: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22240080 Permanent Unity: Probability, Closure, and the Mathematics of Changing Distinction: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22655367 From Atemporal Causation to Atemporal Instantiation: Relational Closure Based on Constraint Dependence in a Timeless Regime: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22557605 Needham, E. (2026). Directedness From Within: Guidance, Desire, and the Continuity of Orientation. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23156373

•May 31, 2026•0 citations
A philosophical argument that "question" is a primary structural phenomenon — a system state with its own dynamics, persistence conditions, and resolution criteria measurably distinct from generic uncertainty. Develops a field theory of question grounded in four theoretical claims about the interrogative field I, situates it within Einstein's spacetime framework, and draws structural convergence with Bae et al. (2026) on open quantum systems. Argues that binary logic is the wrong representational framework for question-states and that quantum logic is correct. Explicitly sets aside the consciousness debate. Associated empirical program: Question-State Test Suite v1.4 (10.5281/zenodo.19444323). Quantum Inquiry, quantuminquiry.org.
Abstract Quantum field theory (QFT) is the union of quantum mechanics and Einstein’ s special theory of relativity. QFT is the most fundamental physical theory and provides the answers to questions about the basic structure of the physical world. However, the way QFT describes the world is so different from the way our senses present it to us that it requires an overhaul of philosophic categories and arguments. How can we know the microscopic world without a satisfactory measurement theory? What are the general conditions of the world that make possible such knowledge? What are the presuppositions of physical theories? Dr.Auyang argues that the current relational substantial debate on space-time is inadequate and the observer-observed distinction in quantum interpretations illusory because they are hampered by philosophical constructs too narrow to accommodate the complicated structures of modern philosophical theories. Modern physical theories have incorporated many presuppositions of empirical knowledge, and consequently the theories inform us about the general nature of the world and out relation to it, in addition to information about elementary particles. The conceptual structure of QFT is extracted and articulated in commonsense terms, and used to answer many longstanding philosophical questions.
This paper introduces the Consciousness-Structured Field Theory (CSFT), a metaphysical framework arguing that consciousness is the foundational structuring principle of reality. The theory proposes that consciousness precedes physical measurement and organizes the resonant patterns that give rise to excitations in the quantum field. Drawing on field theory, metaphysics, and the philosophy of mind, the paper examines the limits of materialist explanations of qualia and offers CSFT as a coherent model for addressing the hard problem of consciousness. Although not yet empirically testable, CSFT is presented as a logically structured philosophical theory intended to guide future interdisciplinary discussion and analysis.
Abstract. In this paper we consider the notions of structure and models within the semantic approach to theories. To highlight the role of the mathematics used to build the structures which will be taken as the models of theories, we review the notion of mathematical structure and of the models of scientific theories. Then, we analyse a case-study and argue that if a certain metaphysical view of quantum objects is adopted, namely, that which sees them as non-individuals, then there would be strong reasons to ask for a different mathematical framework for describ-ing the structures that would be the models of the corresponding theory. In departing from the standard frameworks (that is, worked on within standard mathematics), we hope to bring to the scene, within the scope of the semantic approach, the importance of paying attention to some fundamental concepts usually only superficially touched by philosophers of science (if touched).
Formal preregistration for the Question-State Test Suite v1.4, Phase 1A gate pilot and contingent Phase 1B LLM translation study. Tests whether question-state is a distinct dynamical regime measurably separable from generic uncertainty. Phase 1A: 216 runs, 8 task pairs, 3 agents, 3 perturbation batches. Gate criterion: Cohen's d >= 0.50 and p < 0.05 on both PL and FCR across all repetitions. Grounded in a field theory of interrogative potential I and situated within Einstein's spacetime metric. Does not test for consciousness. Associated test suite: 10.5281/zenodo.19444323. Associated philosophical argument: 10.5281/zenodo.19444663. Quantum Inquiry, quantuminquiry.org.
Quantum mechanics is mathematically complete but conceptually burdened by a discrete‑state ontology that the formalism itself does not require. This paper reframes superposition, measurement, and nonlocality as structural features of unresolved and resolved constraint geometry in continuous fields. In this interpretation, a quantum state is not a catalogue of simultaneous possibilities but the orientation of an unresolved constraint region; measurement is the stabilization of that region under new constraints; and entanglement reflects a single unresolved region spanning multiple subsystems. The standard Hilbert‑space formalism remains unchanged—linearity, projection, the Born rule, and tensor structure all arise naturally from the geometry of unresolved continuity. This framework dissolves the paradoxes associated with collapse, wavefunction ontology, and nonlocal influence, yielding a unified, minimal, and physically intuitive account of quantum behavior that preserves the full empirical power of quantum mechanics while eliminating its metaphysical burdens.
This paper presents the Intentional Field Ontology, a philosophical and speculative scientific framework in which reality is understood not as a collection of primary objects but as one reality whose oneness is never still. Its ground is a single primitive with two inseparable aspects. Unity names the holding: the completeness of reality through every change of its internal articulation. Intention names the moving: the orientation of that articulation toward expression, relation, form, or transformation. Intention is redefined here not as conscious will, psychological desire, or personal agency, but as directed potential independent of consciousness. Unity and intention are neither two principles nor one principle under two names; neither is found without the other. This revised edition brings an ontology first begun in Paris some thirty-one years ago into contact with the formal results of the ENSO Unity papers. Within standard quantum mechanics, relative phase redistributes probability while the total remains one. Destructive interference produces zero through relation rather than absence. Every motion compatible with closure is an antisymmetric internal redistribution. Because closure permits many such motions without selecting one, the mathematics shows unity and directed motion to be inseparable without being identical. This is the place the ontology gives to intention and, beneath it, to guidance. A structural correspondence between intention and relative phase, orientation that is consequential before resolution, is proposed explicitly as a conjecture. The singlet theorem from Unity in Motion supplies a formal instance of the claim that spatial distinction does not imply ontological disunity. The paper proposes seven interlocking axioms: intention is prior to action; the field carries consequence as well as event; objects are stabilised intention; light carries expressed intention; time is the ordering of intention; memory is retained intention; and intelligence is coherence across intention. Priority throughout is read as constraint-bearing dependence rather than temporal precedence, connecting the ontology to ENSO work on atemporal instantiation and relational closure. A major section develops desire, guidance, and intention. Desire is "orientation before authorship," and guidance names the structured, non-random orientation of possibility prior to felt desire, giving the recursive chain: guidance → desire → intention → action → consequence → reflection → renewed field-orientation. A new subsection addresses freedom and determinism. The question assumes a vantage point no finite participant occupies. Freedom is real at the scale of a finite life, and the answer holds whether or not the universe is strictly deterministic. The framework rejects simulation theory: a primitive unity has no outside from which it could be generated. For the same reason it has no place for an external Observer. Observation is treated as participation within the whole. Because intention is defined independently of consciousness, participation extends to any interacting system rather than to minds alone. The paper explicitly distinguishes this from the claim that consciousness causes quantum outcomes. To keep the framework from collapsing into vague metaphysics, the paper includes a falsifiability section and an explicit statement of claim boundaries. The boundaries separate standard mathematics, interpretive claims, conjectures, and what is not claimed. The quantum results recover standard quantum mechanics exactly, and that recovery is their success condition. The closest present empirical test is computational: whether a system can reorient after perturbation even when explicit memory or direct state-access has been removed. ENSO work on poiokritic fields shows structural tendencies reconstituting after reset, contradiction, interruption, and decay, above a memoryless control. The framework's falsifiability ladder runs from computational scars to neurobiological scars to field-level scars. The paper closes by applying the ontology to death, continuity, ethics, responsibility, and inquiry. It argues that the self as object dissolves but the self as consequence remains distributed. Ethical responsibility begins not only at action but at orientation. Genuine questioning is one of the ways the field continues to know itself. This work sits at the intersection of ontology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of physics, quantum foundations, cognitive science, AI theory, neuroscience, ethics, and the ENSO Framework. Version 3 adds a two-null argument for the continuity of intention across physical, biological, psychological and symbolic levels; restores guidance to its original framing as the departure of reality from chaos; explains the choice of "intention" over agency or consciousness; and situates the ontology among neighbouring positions (Aristotle, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Whitehead, dispositional metaphysics, Murdoch), none of which it matches. The discussion of the fine-structure constant has been removed. License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 For further information about the ENSO Framework, please contact Eric Needham: ensotheory1@gmail.com Related works (ENSO Framework, Zenodo) The Intentional Field Ontology: Unity in Motion, Directed Potential, Field-Memory, and Recursive Intelligibility (full statement of the ontology): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23117391 The Unity Paper: Distinction, Conservation, and the Origin of Order: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19481116 Probability Moves, Unity Holds: π, Phase Geometry, Relational Zero, and the Quantum Structure of One: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20776183 Unity in Motion: Distinction, Resolution, and the Articulation of Reality with a Singlet-State Theorem and Bell Correlations: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22240080 Permanent Unity: Probability, Closure, and the Mathematics of Changing Distinction: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22655367 From Atemporal Causation to Atemporal Instantiation: Relational Closure Based on Constraint Dependence in a Timeless Regime: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22557605 Needham, E. (2026). Directedness From Within: Guidance, Desire, and the Continuity of Orientation. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23156373