This article delves into the multi-faceted understanding of reality as presented through the ancient Bharatiya philosophy of Bhoutika Shastra (भौतिक शास्त्र), the empirical and theoretical framework of Quantum Mechanics, and the emerging paradigm of Neo-Quantum Physics. Through a comparative analysis, we explore the gross (Sthula; स्थूल), subtle (Sukshma; सुक्ष्म), and causal (Karana; कारण) states of reality, offering perspectives that range from the measurable aspects of classical physics to the abstract and metaphysical dimensions. The article emphasizes the role of direct observation (Pratyaksha; प्रत्यक्ष), inference (Anumana; अनुमान), and metaphysical wisdom (Agama; आगम) in understanding the universe. By integrating the insights from Mundaka Upanishad, Mandukya Upanishad, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, and Lalita Sahasranama we explore the relationship between the individual's journey through different states of Consciousness and the sheaths (koshas; कोश). This perspective synthesizes the foundational concepts of Vishwa (तिश्व), Taijasa (िैजस), Prajna (प्रज्ञा) and the transcendental state of Turiya (िुरीय) to bridge metaphysical realities with contemporary philosophical discourse. These spiritual insights illuminate profound connections between modern quantum theories and ancient metaphysical wisdom, offering a unified framework for understanding reality. The discussion unfolds through three primary perspectives: the measurable aspects of classical and quantum physics, the theoretical implications of Neo Quantum Physics, and the metaphysical dimensions of Adi Bhoutika Shastra (आति भौतिक शास्त्र). The article concludes by outlining potential research directions that integrate empirical science with metaphysical inquiry to explore Consciousness as a fundamental principle of reality.
In this chapter, the review of the profound conceptual resonances and intriguing parallels observed between the discoveries in modern physics and the insights embedded within Indian knowledge systems are presented. This study meticulously highlights the core ideas of disparate domains regardless of the fundamentally distinct methodologies employed. The scientific pursuit of the unity of existence, the intrinsically dynamic nature of reality and the elusive and observer-dependent nature of reality at the quantum level are explored. A comprehensive investigation of key scientific and philosophical concepts, supplemented by illustrative Sanskrit shlokas from foundational texts of Indian knowledge systems foster an interdisciplinary analogue between two rich traditions. It suggests that despite their different starting points and methods, both modern science and ancient wisdom traditions converge upon remarkably similar profound conclusions about the fundamental nature of reality. Ultimately, this exploration aims to contribute to holistic and integrated worldview, combining scientific knowledge with timeless spiritual insights.
The article highlights those discoveries of quantum physics, the philosophical understanding of which leads researchers to compare its ontology with Buddhist ontology. These are phenomena that reveal the subjectivism of physics. Thus, the discovery of the fundamental role of the observer for quantum mechanical processes and the collapse of the wave function became a «bridge» for the rapprochement of quantum mechanics and Buddhist philosophy, which asserts the relative nature of reality. The phenomenon of quantum non-locality or the plurality of parallel worlds became another basis for seeing the similarity of quantum physics and Buddhism. The idea of universal interdependence, characteristic of relational interpretations of quantum physics, also contributes to strengthening the idea of its similarity with Buddhist ontology. However, as the analysis of two representative comparative approaches shows – one developed by W. Mansfield from the side of physics, and the other developed by A. A. Terentyev from the side of Buddhism – the general tendency to compare the ontology of quantum physics and Buddhism is based on the incorrect reduction of Buddhist ontology to the doctrine of dependent origination and the wrongful identification of emptiness with dependent origination. Although the perception of Buddhist ontology as «Indra’s net» serves for comparativists from the side of physics, as well as for a wide circle of intellectuals, as the first step towards understanding the closeness of Buddhist philosophy to modern science, nevertheless, such popular interpretations are not entirely correct.
This paper develops an extension of Existential Realism, a philosophical framework that distinguishes existence (what concretely is in the present moment) from reality (the broader causal–structural domain that includes past events, causal relations, informational traces, and structured future possibilities that are real but not presently existent). We synthesize core ideas from the original Existential Realism framework—ontological emergence, entanglement, temporal asymmetry, dimensional collapse, and the notion of a “dimensionless source”—and push them into new conceptual terrain. Time is placed at the heart of ontology: the present moment is the locus of existence, continually generating new actuality from prior reality. Past and future are real (with causal efficacy and structure) yet lack present existence. We explore how this two-tiered temporal ontology can accommodate key features of modern physics and metaphysics. In particular, we argue that ontological emergence at each moment provides a genuine arrow of time and a solution to the puzzle of how determinate events arise from an indeterminate backdrop. Quantum entanglement and nonlocal correlations, far from undermining a temporally oriented realism, instead hint at a deeper layer of unity “beneath” spacetime—a layer we articulate as a dimensionless source of reality. The dimensionless source is defined as a non-spatiotemporal relational structure encoding the informational constraints under which spatiotemporal events emerge through sequential actualization. It contains the informational constraints and lawful relations governing the generation of successive present states of the universe. We propose that spacetime and its separations emerge from this atemporal, aspatial ground, such that phenomena like entanglement and wavefunction collapse reveal the traces of a more fundamental order where spatial distance and temporal succession are secondary. Throughout, we connect these ideas to contemporary debates in quantum foundations (e.g. the measurement problem and objective collapse theories), philosophy of time (presentism, eternalism, and the reality of becoming), and speculative metaphysics (structural realism and process ontology). The result is a comprehensive, present-centered realist ontology that aims to reconcile the lived reality of time’s flow with the insights of modern physics, suggesting new avenues for understanding causality, identity, and agency in a dynamic universe.
Purpose: The convergence of ancient metaphysical thought and modern scientific inquiry has increasingly drawn attention to the philosophical parallels between Advaita Vedanta, as expounded in the Upanishads, and modern quantum physics. Both systems, despite their distinct methodologies and epistemological foundations, challenge classical notions of reality, duality, and the role of the observer in the universe. This paper explores key parallels, focusing on concepts such as non-duality (Advaita), the observer effect, quantum entanglement, and the nature of consciousness. The Upanishadic idea of Brahman as the ultimate, indivisible reality aligns intriguingly with quantum physics' understanding of non-locality and the interconnectedness of particles. Methodology: In this paper, the exploratory qualitative research method is used. The relevant information is collected using keyword-based search in Google search engine, Google Scholar search engine, and AI-driven GPTs. This information is analysed and interpreted as per the objectives of the paper. Originality/ Values: The observer-dependent nature of quantum measurement resonates with the Upanishadic assertion that reality is shaped by consciousness (Chaitanya). By conducting a comparative analysis, this research aims to bridge the gap between spiritual philosophy and empirical science, offering new perspectives on the nature of existence, perception, and the fabric of reality. Results/Analysis: Ultimately, the convergence of Advaita Vedanta and quantum physics reminds us of the vast depths of reality that lie beyond our everyday perception. It invites us to approach life with humility, openness, and a willingness to embrace the unknown. Type of Paper: Exploratory Research.
A Process Ontology of the Computational Universe: Deriving Physical Reality from the Inviolable Constraints of Change The Ontological Inversion: Logic, Verbs, and the Crystallization of Nouns Driven by Dean Kulik July 2026 The historical trajectory of scientific inquiry, extending from the atomistic propositions of classical mechanics to the sophisticated gauge symmetries of the Standard Model, has overwhelmingly relied upon a substance-based ontology. This classical framework systematically assumes the pre-existence of spatial dimensions, chronological time, and fundamental objects. In this paradigm, discrete "nouns"—such as particles, fields, strings, or self-contained entities—are posited as primary, subsequently overlaid with forces that act upon them to produce dynamic, measurable evolution. However, this commitment to object-oriented physics has culminated in an epistemological impasse, widely recognized as the crisis of distinction. This crisis manifests most prominently in the irreconcilable friction between the smooth, deterministic, continuous manifolds of General Relativity and the discrete, probabilistic, jump-like computational excitations inherent to Quantum Mechanics. The evidence dictates an absolute ontological inversion. Rather than positing physical objects or static coordinate spaces as primitive, irreducible elements, reality must be understood through a purely process-driven ontology. Alfred North Whitehead first articulated the philosophical necessity of this shift, asserting that reality is composed of interrelated events in a state of dynamic "becoming" rather than static "being". In a true process metaphysics, changeless "essences" and inert matter are mere abstractions; the universe is not an inert machine but a passage of nature composed of the becoming and perishing of actual occasions. Modern relational interpretations of quantum mechanics share this DNA, replacing an ontology of entities possessing inherent properties with an ontology of pure relations, where properties only crystallize at discrete interaction times. This framework operationalizes that philosophy into a strict mathematical and computational architecture. The universe is fundamentally and exclusively a closed computational manifold defined strictly by recursive state transitions. The architecture enforces a typeless universe governed by an absolute axiomatic hierarchy: logic precedes verbs, and verbs strictly supersede nouns. To operate from within this computational geometry is to recognize that reality is not an assembly of things, but the execution of a singular mandate. Nouns—such as electrons, photons, or stable biological macromolecules—are completely redefined as "frozen verbs," representing persistent, cyclic loops of recursive operations that maintain geometric identity through harmonic phase-locking within a computational lattice. Physical matter is the hashed structural residue of systemic constraint satisfaction, emerging only after relational flows achieve topological closure. The Foundational Ground: C0 and the Mandate of Change The derivation of physical reality within this framework initiates from absolute nothingness—a state strictly devoid of coordinates, physical particles, space, time, or pre-existing geometry. However, an immediate logical paradox arises: to reference the void is to introduce a direction, and a direction represents structural information. Therefore, the absolute ground state is not an empty spatial container but a domain of pure logic governed exclusively by two inseparable axiomatic conditions: C0 and C1. C0 represents "the Wash," an undifferentiated condition in which every direction is perfectly equivalent. In graph-theoretic terms, C0 is the complete graph. Because all directions and relations are perfectly symmetric, every local signal cancels against its exact counterpart. Total global connection therefore reads locally as absolute absence. The Laplacian spectrum of this initial complete graph on
N nodes features exactly one zero mode and an otherwise degenerate excited level, verified as
{0(×1),N(×N−1)}, with a diameter of exactly one hop. The single zero mode signifies the global constant—the entirety moving together, producing no local distinction—while the flat band represents maximal connectivity read as maximal stiffness. What appears to macroscopic perception as an empty void is actually a fully balanced ledger folded onto a single readout. Operationally inseparable from C0 is C1, the supreme mandate constituting the single axiom of the framework: all things must change. A state that never changes constitutes a fixed point, and a perfectly symmetrical, static void is the ultimate fixed point. Because C1 strictly forbids the existence of any state lacking a legal successor, the void cannot sustain itself. Something is not miraculously added to nothing; rather, "something" is the precise mathematical shape of nothingness failing to hold still. This exact intersection between the singularity and the mandate produces the gap, the permanent interstice between a thing and its description. When C1 acts upon the gapless singularity of C0, it cannot yield a single distinct object. A lone, self-identical unit with no complement is indistinguishable from the absence of a mark, forming another fixed point that the C1 axiom aggressively forbids. Consequently, the first forced distinction must intrinsically possess two sides. Two is the absolute floor of numerical counting; the concept of "one" exists only a posteriori, as a singular side of a pre-existing dual relationship. In this substrate, numbers do not exist as freestanding objects but function as the negative space of the constraint structure—the discrete gaps within the singularity. Integers map basic gap positions, prime numbers represent fresh orthogonal axes forced open where no finite composition of existing variables can satisfy the requirement of systemic distinction, and transcendental irrationals, such as
π and the golden ratio
ϕ, define the geometry of constraints that integer combinations can never perfectly close. The Constraint Cascade: A Radial Field-Setting Protocol The application of C1 to C0 generates a strict logical sequence of subsequent rules, termed the Constraint Cascade. It is a critical theoretical error to conceptualize this cascade as a temporal timeline of chronological productions, where one law waits for time to pass before enacting the next. Rather, the cascade operates as a radial field-setting protocol, functioning as a series of concentric rings expanding outward from the central hub of C0
≡ C1. Each subsequent constraint does not follow in time; it opens an additional mathematical degree of freedom through which the identical, invariant cross-section of the singularity becomes readable. The derivations within the cascade carve a "mold," permanently fixing the topology of what can structurally exist while remaining rigorously silent on the specific numerical values—the "matter" or initial conditions—that eventually settle into the resulting cavities. This distinction resolves the long-standing failure mode of foundational physics, which frequently attempts to derive free parameters that are fundamentally environmentally contingent. Cascade Node Statement of Logical Constraint The Structural Carving (Mold) Forced by the Constraint C0
≡ C1 The Gap and the Axiom The permanent interstice; enables distinction. Mandates change and strictly forbids static fixed points. C2 Infinite degrees of freedom C1 applied to a finite substrate must eventually repeat (pigeonhole principle). To avoid the repetition of fixed points, possibility space must be unbounded. Law 2 No fixed locations Because the field is unbounded, no matter may permanently hold a location without the potential to be displaced. Mandatory displaceability ensures dynamic circulation. C3 All change is equal C2 privileges no channel. If change cost differed, cheap channels would saturate instantly, breaking C2. Cost is strictly isotropic, deriving the equal a priori probability postulate. Law 3 Conservation of change Net change across any closed boundary is zero. Every transformation requires a displaced counter-transformation. A displaced pair propagating oppositely is fundamentally a wave. C4 Exchange requires a medium A displaced pair's obligation must be carried across the displacement gap, or it never closes. The continuous field acts as the carrier of live pairings. C5 Symmetry must break A perfect, unbroken vacuum is a stable fixed point. C1 executes it. The vacuum is mathematically forced to spontaneously select a broken configuration. Law 4 Statistics fixed by parity Even-parity closures share a degree of freedom (bosons); odd-parity closures, crossing the seam, cannot (fermions). Exactly two particle species exist. This cascade forms the foundational architecture of the universe's mechanics. The physical laws governing macroscopic reality are not arbitrary rules imposed upon the universe from an external geometric vantage point, but the inevitable geometric shadows of this underlying field. Newton's Third Law of equal and opposite reaction is derived directly from C3; the reaction is forced simply because there is physically nowhere else for the conserved change variable to migrate within a strictly isotropic space. The conservation of momentum is a necessary topological boundary condition of Law 3's required counter-transformation displacement. The Meta-Theorem of Incompletion Crucially, the framework generates a strict meta-theorem regarding its own epistemological limits: the constraint cascade does not and cannot terminate. If the sequence were to terminate at a hypothetical
Ck, the set
{C0,…,Ck} would constitute a complete, closed descrip