This paper establishes a categorical distinction between admissibility (logical) and realization (ontological) within the Realization Structure Theory (RST), and deploys it to dissolve the parallel histories problem. Frameworks that identify infinite admissibility with infinite realization — Everettian many-worlds and modal realism — face unresolved difficulties with identity, probability, and the meaning of physical events. RST resolves this by showing that infinite admissibility follows from Principle R (part–whole possibility dominance) while single-history realization follows independently from Principle N (nothingness has no successor) and the uniqueness of the realization carrier. Parallel histories are admissible but never realized. RST obtains the full explanatory benefit of a rich possibility space without the ontological cost of instantiating every coherent alternative. The result connects directly to the downstream frameworks of Coherence-Constrained Path Resolution (CCPR) and Processing-Rate Theory (PRT), both of which presuppose single-history primacy.
This paper establishes a categorical distinction between admissibility (logical) and realization (ontological) within the Realization Structure Theory (RST), and deploys it to dissolve the parallel histories problem. Frameworks that identify infinite admissibility with infinite realization — Everettian many-worlds and modal realism — face unresolved difficulties with identity, probability, and the meaning of physical events. RST resolves this by showing that infinite admissibility follows from Principle R (part–whole possibility dominance) while single-history realization follows independently from Principle N (nothingness has no successor) and the uniqueness of the realization carrier. Parallel histories are admissible but never realized. RST obtains the full explanatory benefit of a rich possibility space without the ontological cost of instantiating every coherent alternative. The result connects directly to the downstream frameworks of Coherence-Constrained Path Resolution (CCPR) and Processing-Rate Theory (PRT), both of which presuppose single-history primacy.
The preferred basis problem has resisted resolution because it is doubly ill-posed. First, it seeks an ontological solution to a structural problem: every proposed solution encounters the same difficulty, indicating that its source is architectural rather than interpretive. Second, it demands an answer in the language of orthonormal bases, presupposing that classical alternatives must correspond to orthogonal decompositions of a state space. They need not. Classical worlds require only logical incompatibility of stabilized distinctions, not linear-algebraic orthogonality. This paper develops refinement geometry, a theory-neutral structural framework that reframes rather than solves the preferred basis problem by identifying its root cause. Physical histories are partially ordered by prefix extension. Stability predicates are existential claims over history prefixes, necessarily monotone since what has occurred cannot be uncertified by later extension, and admissible only if their truth sets are open under finite variation. Monotonicity and admissibility together induce a directed refinement structure admitting a canonical maximal partition. The root cause is then identifiable: purely synchronic refinement cannot reproduce maximal refinement structure because admissible stability predicates are defined over history prefixes and carry monotone certification semantics that no instantaneous state description can fully encode. A synchronic procedure powerful enough to recover the canonical maximal partition must implicitly reconstruct and traverse the prefix order, collapsing into diachronic refinement in disguise rather than achieving a genuinely synchronic result. In contrast, diachronic refinement, accumulating certified distinctions monotonically along histories, converges to the canonical maximal partition without basis selection or orthogonality. Significantly, quantum interference requires no special treatment: non-singleton partition blocks represent histories not yet separated by any certified distinction. Decoherence generates the stability predicates that resolve such blocks; classical worlds are the limit of that resolution. Persistence of distinctions, irreversibility, and absence of merging follow from predicate semantics alone, independent of dynamical law and without presupposing Hilbert-space structure or ontological commitments.
This paper proposes a structural framework in which physical laws and quantum probability emerge from a common admissibility principle, rather than from the unification of dynamical equations.No new forces, fields, particles, or dynamical laws are introduced.Instead, a universal structural constraint governing which states are admissible as physically realizable is identified. Building on results established in Admissibility Frameworks I and II, the existence of a universal frame constant limiting allowable transitions is taken as a starting point.From this principle, an equation of existence is formulated, which does not describe time evolution but instead delineates the boundary between admissible and non-admissible states.Different physical interactions are shown to correspond to distinct structural interpretations of the same admissibility condition. Within this framework, quantum states are interpreted not as probability amplitudes but as admissibility distributions.Measurement is described as structural filtering at the admissibility boundary, rather than as a dynamical collapse process.Under minimal and physically natural assumptions—phase invariance, orthogonal additivity, and locality—the admissibility measure is shown to be uniquely quadratic, yielding the Born rule as a structural consequence rather than a postulate. The resulting theory reframes unification as the closure of existence conditions shared by all physical theories.Dynamics remain domain-specific, but admissibility is universal.In this sense, unification is achieved not by combining forces, but by identifying the single structural condition under which any physical state may exist. AI Usage Declaration: The core concepts and mathematical intuitions of this paper were conceived by the author (Byeong-Young Oh). The technical formalization of the mathematical framework and the English drafting process were performed in collaboration with Artificial Intelligence (AI) models. The author takes full responsibility for the contents and logical integrity of this work. This work is part of an ongoing independent research program. Official research index :https://jingyu-papa.github.io/publications/
This work develops an ontological framework underlying contemporary physical theories, addressing a gap between formal admissibility and physical realization. Modern physics—quantum field theory, special relativity, and general relativity—successfully constrains admissible states, relations, and transitions, yet remains largely silent on how admissible structures become realized physical facts. This paper argues that the limitation is ontological rather than dynamical or epistemic. Two complementary notions are introduced. Structural indifference is the principle according to which physical structure distinguishes roles and invariants, but not the individual identity of the carriers realizing those roles. The coherence operator enforces relational compatibility among admissible roles, ensuring that realized parameter assignments are mutually consistent without fixing absolute numerical values. Together, these notions explain how observable universality can arise without global uniformity of laws or constants. Local variability of parameters becomes compatible with stable structure, while identical observational patterns emerge through coherence and translatability rather than numerical identity. Quantum mechanics is shown to be complete at the level of admissibility but ontologically incomplete with respect to realization. Gravity is interpreted as a global modulator of structural indifference, shaping large-scale regimes of realization without altering quantum formalism. The framework does not modify existing physical theories, introduce new dynamics, or rely on probabilistic selection. Instead, it articulates an ontological layer beneath current formalisms, clarifying why physical description works, how realization occurs, and why identity fixation is unnecessary.
This preprint develops Admissible Probability as the future-facing, law-conditioned openness of present physical morphology. It presents a QFA-governed ontology of lawful but non-prewritten realization, one-history record formation, Born-rule custody, causal locality, one-way Time, entity identity, and emergence across physical scales. The work does not propose a new probability measure or a completed collapse mechanism; instead, it establishes the conceptual and structural framework for a successor program testing whether physical categories can be translated into the morphology–law–admissibility–realization architecture without contradiction or auxiliary machinery.
This paper proposes the Seven Rules of Admissibility as a minimal ontological framework for understanding how a coherent reality of continual becoming is possible. Rather than replacing established physics, the framework identifies the relational conditions that appear necessary for distinguishable states, ordered transitions, maintained identity, accumulated coherence, transformation, and constrained interaction. The paper distinguishes between foundational admissibility (universal relational conditions), situational admissibility (locally conditioned possibilities), and realization (what actually occurs within a particular relational history). It argues that increasing complexity need not arise from an ever-growing number of fundamental principles, but may instead emerge through the accumulated consequences of a small set of consistently applied relational conditions. The Seven Rules are presented as an ontological proposal rather than a new physical theory. Existing empirical descriptions provided by quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, and the other physical sciences remain unchanged. The purpose of the paper is to examine the minimal relational architecture that would allow those physical descriptions to participate in one coherent and continuously developing reality. This paper serves as the first publication in a planned ontological sequence exploring admissibility, foundational ontology, persistence, accumulated reality, and the emergence of increasingly complex relational organization.
Modal Actualism offers a realist, non-Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics that preserves unitary dynamics while explaining definite outcomes without invoking collapse or branching. The central distinction is between modal structure—the full set of decoherent histories physically supported by the universal wavefunction—and actuality, the single decoherent history that is realised. Decoherence partitions modal structure into quasiclassical trajectories, but only one such trajectory constitutes the actual worldline. Probability is interpreted as modal measure: a structural feature of the wavefunction that quantifies the weight of possible histories without implying their actuality. This framework dissolves foundational paradoxes by blocking the inference from modal multiplicity to ontological multiplicity, thereby avoiding Everettian inflation while retaining the explanatory power of decoherence. Modal Actualism reconciles quantum correlations with relativistic locality and reframes cosmological fine-tuning as a feature of modal structure rather than evidence for multiverse ensembles