This paper fixes state within the second system of Kasei-Theory. State is not introduced as ontology, objecthood, property, actuality, physical state, measured state, empirical condition, collapse result, persistence, transition, or identity. Reading does not establish state. Time does not establish state. Observation does not establish state. Configuration does not establish state. State is fixed only as the local readability condition under which ordered maintainability is readable as state without ontology. This readability does not establish ontology, objecthood, property, actuality, measurement, physical state, empirical condition, collapse result, persistence, transition, or identity. The paper prevents state from being reduced to physical state, measured state, empirical condition, collapse result, object-state, stable entity, or ontological condition. State does not result from measurement, does not follow observation, does not become physical state, and does not secure identity. No object is presupposed. No physical state is introduced. No measurement is established. No actuality is restored. No transition is introduced. No identity is secured.
This paper fixes state within the second system of Kasei-Theory. State is not introduced as ontology, objecthood, property, actuality, physical state, measured state, empirical condition, collapse result, persistence, transition, or identity. Reading does not establish state. Time does not establish state. Observation does not establish state. Configuration does not establish state. State is fixed only as the local readability condition under which ordered maintainability is readable as state without ontology. This readability does not establish ontology, objecthood, property, actuality, measurement, physical state, empirical condition, collapse result, persistence, transition, or identity. The paper prevents state from being reduced to physical state, measured state, empirical condition, collapse result, object-state, stable entity, or ontological condition. State does not result from measurement, does not follow observation, does not become physical state, and does not secure identity. No object is presupposed. No physical state is introduced. No measurement is established. No actuality is restored. No transition is introduced. No identity is secured.
This paper fixes observation within the second system of Kasei-Theory. Observation is not introduced as subject-act, observer, cognition, perception, measurement, empirical access, registration, evidence, collapse, or object-formation. Reading does not establish observation. Time does not establish observation. Configuration does not establish observation. Observation is fixed only as the local readability condition under which ordered maintainability is readable as observation without subject. This readability does not establish subject, observer, cognition, perception, measurement, access, evidence, collapse, object, or ontology. The paper prevents observation from being reduced to empirical knowledge, physical measurement, epistemic foundation, observer-position, or measurement-collapse. Observation does not access Kagen, does not disclose a world, does not form an object, and does not establish a subject. No observer is presupposed. No cognition is introduced. No perception is introduced. No measurement is established. No collapse is introduced. No object is formed.
Amid the wide variety of interpretations of quantum mechanics, the notion of a fully coherent ontological interpretation has seen a promising evolution over the last few decades. Despite this progress, however, the old dualistic categorical constraints of subjectivity and objectivity, correlate with the metrically restricted definition of local and global, have remained largely in place – a reflection of the broader, persistent inheritance of these comfortable strictures throughout the evolution of modern science. If one traces this inheritance back to its ancient roots in Plato and Aristotle, it is clear that the coherence, scientific utility, and historical durability of the various natural philosophies that followed have been directly proportional to their commitment, tacit or explicit, to object-oriented realism. As Simondon might put it, it is a commitment to the primacy of individuated substance over the process of individuation. For Whitehead, it is the misplaced assimilation of becoming to being, of potentiality to actuality. Quantum mechanics has challenged this commitment with a combined breadth and depth of force that far exceeds any other theory in the history of science. The theory’s objectively demonstrable empirical application is manifest only by way of a fundamentally subjective, context-dependent mechanism of measurement. More compelling still, actual system states are always actualizations of locally contextualized yet globally conditioned potential system states, such that “globally objective” reality is no longer merely the object of local measurement, but also its product. Thus, any coherent, ontological interpretation of quantum theory must include a conceptual framework by which objectivity and subjectivity, actuality and potentiality, global and local, being and becoming, individuated fact and process of individuation, are no longer understood as merely epistemic, mutually exclusive category pairs descriptive of an already extant, closed reality – but rather as mutually implicative ontological categories explicative of an ontogenetic, open reality-in-process.
In this chapter, I will discuss what it takes for a dynamical collapse theory to provide a reasonable description of the actual world. I will start with discussions of what is required, in general, of the ontology of a physical theory, and then apply it to the quantum case. One issue of interest is whether a collapse theory can be a quantum state monist theory, adding nothing to the quantum state and changing only its dynamics. Although this was one of the motivations for advancing such theories, its viability has been questioned, and it has been argued that, in order to provide an account of the world, a collapse theory must supplement the quantum state with additional ontology, making such theories more like hidden-variables theories than would first appear. I will make a case for quantum state monism as an adequate ontology, and, indeed, the only sensible ontology for collapse theories. This will involve taking dynamical variables to possess, not sharp values, as in classical physics, but distributions of values.
Holographic Information Ontological Framework: Relation (HIOF-Rel) Correlation, Records, and the Limits of Readability HIOF-Rel is a seven-paper conceptual series, comprising Paper 0 and Papers I to VI, for readers in philosophy of physics, quantum foundations, information theory, and ontology. Its central task is to clarify correlation: how apparently separate things remain connected, how parts become identifiable, and how a correlated world becomes readable to observers who are themselves part of it. The core idea HIOF describes the correlated whole as an information ocean and relatively stable objects and records as textures within it. These are different descriptive levels of one world, not two separate substances. A readable texture does not exhaust the whole from which it arises. Losing access to a record does not mean that information or correlation has disappeared. Relation is not one thing The series separates logical relation, relational property, statistical correlation, causal influence, signalling channel, and ontological dependence. These meanings can overlap, but they are not interchangeable. In particular, correlation does not by itself provide a controllable channel for communication, and the absence of such a channel does not establish the absence of correlation. General relation retains its ordinary breadth. A narrower term, transactional relation, identifies interactions whose compatible records can be kept, read, or exchanged by both parties. This distinction does not imply that electrons or other systems without such ledgers have no relations. Strong and weak correlation The ocean and texture picture provides the broad conceptual vocabulary. In technical quantum discussions, strong and weak correlation are distinguished through inseparability and separability under a specified partition. Correlation type is not determined by numerical strength alone. Separability, classicality, broadcastability, and monogamy are treated separately, while multipartite examples show why pairwise correlations cannot represent every property of a whole. Parts, objects, and internal observers The series asks what makes something count as a part before treating it as an independent object. Observable-induced partitions provide a physical reference for this question. Objecthood is then characterised through stable organisation and continued identifiability, rather than complete isolation from the environment. An observer is an internal participant, not a reader outside the world. This position does not depend on whether a quantum interpretation assigns consciousness a role in collapse. HIOF's language of consciousness as the manifestation of being online is distinguished from the narrower operational characterisation of self-recording. Records, ledgers, and time A record is a distinguishable trace maintained under stated conditions. Redundancy allows several parties to access compatible information, but stability also requires suitable dynamics and preservation. A ledger organises records and their dependencies. Historical occurrence, the persistence of a physical carrier, and dynamical reversibility are kept distinct. Time is explored as a reading of ledger order; physical duration, clock calibration, and spacetime geometry require further structure. The arc window The arc window names the finite reach of observation across time, space, scale, and accessible operations. Physics remains effective within its domain without thereby exhausting the universe. The series asserts neither the existence nor the non-existence of superluminal or fully static structure beyond that reach. Limited access does not license arbitrary claims about what cannot be read. Black holes and the limits of readability Within HIOF, black holes play the role of unbinding existing textures and recoding informational correlation, allowing information to enter other forms of organisation. This ontological role is distinguished from its detailed physical implementation. Exterior unreadability is not automatically equated with the absence of interior records, matter, or time. Method and scope Each paper separates ontological positions, conceptual definitions, and established physical results. The series introduces no new physical dynamics and does not claim to have unified quantum mechanics and general relativity. Its contribution is to clarify distinctions, expose unsupported inferences, and identify what further modelling would need to establish. Keywords: correlation, relation, readability, records, ledger, arc window, objecthood, conceptual engineering, entanglement, Bell inequalities, quantum Darwinism, black-hole information, philosophy of physics AuthorWai-Hung Tam (Pan), Independent ResearcherORCID: 0009-0002-7789-8464Email: panxtam@protonmail.com
Holographic Information Ontological Framework: Relation (HIOF-Rel) Correlation, Records, and the Limits of Readability HIOF-Rel is a seven-paper conceptual series, comprising Paper 0 and Papers I to VI, for readers in philosophy of physics, quantum foundations, information theory, and ontology. Its central task is to clarify correlation: how apparently separate things remain connected, how parts become identifiable, and how a correlated world becomes readable to observers who are themselves part of it. The core idea HIOF describes the correlated whole as an information ocean and relatively stable objects and records as textures within it. These are different descriptive levels of one world, not two separate substances. A readable texture does not exhaust the whole from which it arises. Losing access to a record does not mean that information or correlation has disappeared. Relation is not one thing The series separates logical relation, relational property, statistical correlation, causal influence, signalling channel, and ontological dependence. These meanings can overlap, but they are not interchangeable. In particular, correlation does not by itself provide a controllable channel for communication, and the absence of such a channel does not establish the absence of correlation. General relation retains its ordinary breadth. A narrower term, transactional relation, identifies interactions whose compatible records can be kept, read, or exchanged by both parties. This distinction does not imply that electrons or other systems without such ledgers have no relations. Strong and weak correlation The ocean and texture picture provides the broad conceptual vocabulary. In technical quantum discussions, strong and weak correlation are distinguished through inseparability and separability under a specified partition. Correlation type is not determined by numerical strength alone. Separability, classicality, broadcastability, and monogamy are treated separately, while multipartite examples show why pairwise correlations cannot represent every property of a whole. Parts, objects, and internal observers The series asks what makes something count as a part before treating it as an independent object. Observable-induced partitions provide a physical reference for this question. Objecthood is then characterised through stable organisation and continued identifiability, rather than complete isolation from the environment. An observer is an internal participant, not a reader outside the world. This position does not depend on whether a quantum interpretation assigns consciousness a role in collapse. HIOF's language of consciousness as the manifestation of being online is distinguished from the narrower operational characterisation of self-recording. Records, ledgers, and time A record is a distinguishable trace maintained under stated conditions. Redundancy allows several parties to access compatible information, but stability also requires suitable dynamics and preservation. A ledger organises records and their dependencies. Historical occurrence, the persistence of a physical carrier, and dynamical reversibility are kept distinct. Time is explored as a reading of ledger order; physical duration, clock calibration, and spacetime geometry require further structure. The arc window The arc window names the finite reach of observation across time, space, scale, and accessible operations. Physics remains effective within its domain without thereby exhausting the universe. The series asserts neither the existence nor the non-existence of superluminal or fully static structure beyond that reach. Limited access does not license arbitrary claims about what cannot be read. Black holes and the limits of readability Within HIOF, black holes play the role of unbinding existing textures and recoding informational correlation, allowing information to enter other forms of organisation. This ontological role is distinguished from its detailed physical implementation. Exterior unreadability is not automatically equated with the absence of interior records, matter, or time. Method and scope Each paper separates ontological positions, conceptual definitions, and established physical results. The series introduces no new physical dynamics and does not claim to have unified quantum mechanics and general relativity. Its contribution is to clarify distinctions, expose unsupported inferences, and identify what further modelling would need to establish. Keywords: correlation, relation, readability, records, ledger, arc window, objecthood, conceptual engineering, entanglement, Bell inequalities, quantum Darwinism, black-hole information, philosophy of physics AuthorWai-Hung Tam (Pan), Independent ResearcherORCID: 0009-0002-7789-8464Email: panxtam@protonmail.com
The main question under investigation in this thesis was the reality of the quantum state. We approached this problem by studying a recent no-go result by Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph, namely the PBR theorem. In Section 1 we provided a short introduction to quantum theory. A few relevant examples were covered, namely decompositions of quantum states, impossibility of the ignorance interpretation and the distinguishability of pure quantum states. Section 2 developed measure theoretic tools needed in the framework of ontological models. The Radon-Nikodym theorem was proven in order to justify the use of an alternative expression of the variational distance of probability measures. In Section 3 we developed a general framework for ontological models. In short, the ontological models framework can be considered the most general framework currently available for hidden variable theories and no-go results. We used the measure theoretic tools of Section 2 to make the formalism rigorous. Original research included in Section 3 was the characterization of a property called antidistinguishability for qubit states. A necessary and sufficient condition for antidistinguishability was given. It was then proven that any set of pure qubit states that is not antidistinguishable can be made antidistinguishable by adding a single carefully chosen state into the set. In the end of Section 3, some original observations were presented. Namely, a specific connection with contextuality was proven for sometimes ψ-ontic and never ψ-ontic ontological models. However, it was then noted that these observations were not enough to exclude never ψ-ontic ontological models, a feat that would have provided a new no-go theorem on its own. Contextuality in the ontological models framework was studied in Section 4. The main results were establishing preparation contextuality from the failure of maximal ψ-epistemicity and a proof of Bell's theorem based on preparation contextuality established this way. We concluded that ψ-ontic models cannot be Bell local based on these results. Finally in Section 5 the implications of ψ-ontology were discussed. By careful analysis of the results, it was noted that accepting the reality of the quantum state exposes explanatory gaps in the formalism. Possible solutions to the challenges introduced by these explanatory gaps were discussed through interpretations of quantum mechanics and the so-called measurement problem.