The mathematics of quantum mechanics has been consistent for a century, yet "what it actually says" remains unclear. We argue this is fundamentally a linguistic problem: classical language lacks the correct ontological subject. The missing subject is "relation"—a precisely defined structural primitive. Using relation as the unified subject, we restate eight core quantum phenomena (double-slit, wave-particle duality, collapse, entanglement, uncertainty, complementarity, EPR, tunneling) in a single coherent narrative. All restatements are mathematically equivalent to standard QM; the contribution is a more complete interpretive language. We position this as non-local relational realism, distinct from Rovelli's epistemological RQM.
The mathematics of quantum mechanics has been consistent for a century, yet "what it actually says" remains unclear. We argue this is fundamentally a linguistic problem: classical language lacks the correct ontological subject. The missing subject is "relation"—a precisely defined structural primitive. Using relation as the unified subject, we restate eight core quantum phenomena (double-slit, wave-particle duality, collapse, entanglement, uncertainty, complementarity, EPR, tunneling) in a single coherent narrative. All restatements are mathematically equivalent to standard QM; the contribution is a more complete interpretive language. We position this as non-local relational realism, distinct from Rovelli's epistemological RQM.
Abstract The following paper explores the metaphysical significance of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). For this, I will first outline Rovelli’s philosophical framework, and then offer a reconstruction of Rovelli’s seminal argument in favour of RQM. I will then explore some healthy lines of philosophical work that may be undertaken to strengthen RQM. First, I will frame RQM in the debate between realist and antirealist readings of QM and defend the general claim that RQM is compatible with realism. Then, I discuss the main ontological interpretations of RQM, which I classify as “dispositional”, “transcendental” and “structural”, and argue that all of them remain committed to substantialist assumptions that limit the radicality of Rovelli’s proposal. Finally, I analyse recent developments on RQM’s ontology and suggest that preserving its ontological originality requires an assessment on the concept of “pattern”.
This paper examines the metaphysical foundations of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM), with special attention to its compatibility with scientific realism. We argue that RQM faces a dilemma. In its original formulation, RQM secures a sparse ontology of relative quantum events, but lacks the world-building structure needed to explain how these events jointly constitute a single, coherent reality of the kind presupposed by scientific realism. Recent discussions have already emphasized the difficulties that RQM faces concerning intersubjective agreement, communication, and the emergence of stable facts. Our contribution is to diagnose these difficulties as symptoms of a deeper metaphysical problem: RQM provides relative facts, but no clear account of what makes them facts of one world. We then assess the revised formulation proposed by Adlam and Rovelli, centered on the Cross-Perspective Links (CPL) principle. While CPL aims to restore intersubjective agreement by guaranteeing consistency across perspectives, we argue that it does so at a significant cost. It introduces observer-independent facts, persistent information-bearing structures, and global consistency constraints that sit uneasily with the relational spirit of the original interpretation. Thus, RQM either remains thoroughly relational but metaphysically too weak to support robust scientific realism, or it repairs this weakness by compromising its own relational foundations.
The quantum measurement problem continues to challenge classical ontological assumptions embedded in scientific discourse. Substantialist interpretations presume independent entities bearing definite properties, while instrumentalist approaches reduce quantum theory to predictive formalism, both retaining subject-predicate grammar that imposes classical categories onto quantum phenomena. Recent relational interpretations argue that quantum mechanics demands a fundamentally different descriptive mode, one that privileges interdependence and syntactic structure over Substantialist predication. This study explores the linguistic dimensions of quantum entanglement and measurement, drawing on the relational framework to demonstrate how entanglement manifests as a single grammatical structure rather than a causal connection between independent substances. Using QuTiP simulations, we visualized maximally entangled Bell states, reduced density matrices on Bloch spheres, Wigner functions of cat states, Fock distributions, and projective measurement statistics. Nested observer scenarios (Wigner’s friend) were modeled to contrast definite first-person reports with unitary third-person descriptions. Linguistic analysis drew on Saussurean semiotics and contemporary philosophy of physics to interpret visual results. Findings: Reduced density matrices of entangled subsystems are maximally mixed, showing no local definite properties, visualized as vanishing Bloch vectors. Wigner functions and Fock distributions exhibit non-classical interference, while joint measurements reveal perfect correlations as syntactic unfolding rather than causal influence. Wigner’s friend simulations confirm the Friend always experiences definite outcomes, whereas Wigner’s unitary view sustains superposed predication, exposing irreconcilable descriptive frames. Quantum phenomena resist classical subject-predicate grammar; entanglement and superposition embody relational, non-substantial structures whose correlations reflect pre-existing grammatical interdependence within the quantum langue, not mysterious action-at-a-distance. Recommendation: Future interpretations should prioritize relational ontologies that dispense with substantialist premises and develop formal languages capable of expressing quantum interdependence without smuggling classical predication. Empirical tests of relational predictions and interdisciplinary work bridging quantum foundations and semiotics are strongly encouraged.
The standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics relies on a set of historically established, ad hoc postulates to describe particle-wave duality, measurement, and non-locality. In this paper, we propose a single foundational axiom that fully reproduces the standard mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics while eliminating the need for supplementary assumptions. From this singular postulate, we rigorously derive the fundamental origin of the wave function and the mathematical generator of the Schrödinger equation. Furthermore, we demonstrate via isomorfism that all seemingly inexplicable quantum phenomena—including wave-function collapse and quantum entanglement—are mathematically and conceptually reducible to the underlying dynamics of the double-slit experiment. By establishing a direct fundamental correlation between the double-slit interference mechanism and the Monty Hall phenomenon, we prove that these effects are distinct manifestations of the exact same principle. We framed the double-slit experiment as an interference of the space of possibilities affected by information and simetrys. Ultimately, by anchoring the existing quantum mathematical framework to this unique axiom, this work provides a coherent, paradox-free ontological foundation that resolves the interpretational crisis of quantum mechanics without altering its empirical predictive power.
This article reconsiders the double-slit experiment by establishing a new type of relationship between it and the concept of entanglement. While the role of entanglement in the double-slit experiment has been considered, this particular relationship appears to have been missed in preceding discussions of the experiment, even by Bohr, who extensively used it to support his argument concerning quantum physics. The main reason for this relationship is the different roles of the diaphragm with slits in two setups, S1 and S2, defining the double-slit experiment as a quantum experiment. In S1, in each individual run of the experiment one can in principle (even if not actually) know throughout which slit the quantum object considered has passed; in S2 this knowledge is in principle impossible, which impossibility is coextensive with the appearance of the interference pattern, once a sufficient number of individual runs of the experiment have taken place. The article offers the following argument based on two new concepts, an "experimentally quantum object" and an "ontologically quantum object." In S1 the diaphragm can be treated as part of an observational arrangement and thus considered as a classical object, while the object passing through one or the other slit is considered as an "ontologically quantum object," defined as an object necessary to establish a quantum phenomenon. By contrast, in S2, the diaphragm can, via the concept of Heisenberg-von-Neumann cut, be treated as an "experimentally quantum object," defined as an object treatable by quantum theory, even while possibly being an ontologically classical object. This interaction is not an observation but a quantum entanglement between these two quantum objects, one ontologically and one experimentally quantum. This argument is grounded in a particular interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum theory, which belongs to the class of interpretations designated here as "reality without realism" (RWR) interpretations. The article also argues that wave-particle complementarity, with which the concept of complementarity is often associated, plays little, if any, role in quantum physics, or in Bohr's thinking, and may be misleading in considering the double-slit experiment, often explained by using this complementarity.
Abstract This work presents a structural ontology of quantum mechanics grounded in the limits of formal description, rather than in interpretative models. Instead of proposing a new interpretation, modification of equations, or metaphysical extension, the text identifies a missing structural layer implicitly assumed by quantum theory: the necessity of filtration in systems operating beyond formal completeness. Drawing on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems as a structural precedent, the analysis reframes core quantum phenomena — superposition, collapse, entanglement, uncertainty, and wave–particle duality — as expressions of constrained potential rather than paradoxical physical behavior. Quantum mechanics is shown to operate in a pre-physical regime, describing admissible possibilities prior to enforced resolution, while classical physics describes the outcome of irreversible constraint. From this perspective, collapse is not caused by observation, randomness, or consciousness, but by saturation of coherence under applied constraints. Uncertainty emerges as a logical consequence of non-coexistent descriptions within a single formal frame, rather than as an epistemic limitation. The work then generalizes this framework beyond physics, demonstrating that entropy, irreversibility, and systemic collapse arise when systems continue operating beyond their Gödelian limits without a heuristic capable of recognizing formal exhaustion. This leads to a distinction between reintegrative (pre-Gödel) entropy and residual (post-Gödel) entropy regimes, with implications for computation, cognition, artificial systems, and large-scale systemic viability. This document is descriptive, not prescriptive.It introduces no implementations and proposes no cosmological mechanisms.Its contribution is the explicit articulation of structural constraints that any coherent physical or systemic description must satisfy.