This article offers a systematic interpretation of quantum objects within the ontology of EFOS (Entity That Forming Objects and Subjects). Key concept explained: EFO (Entity Forming Objects) is the hypothetical source of all objects that are not subjects: stars, planets, stones, elementary particles. EFO is not itself an object—it generates them, projects them into reality. Think of it as a projector that creates an image, but the projector itself is not visible on the screen. It is shown that quantum objects — superpositions, entangled states — can be understood as projections of EFOS at the quantum level of description (G = quantum). Superposition is interpreted as a "pre-projection sector" onto the classical register: a state in which an entity has not yet been projected into classical ontology. Wave function collapse is interpreted as a change in the level of description G (quantum → classical), rather than as a physical process. The projection operator P(G) is shown to form a semigroup, not a group — projection is irreversible, and part of the information about the source remains in the kernel of the operator and cannot be recovered from the screen. Decoherence is interpreted as the irreversible loss of information in this kernel. The Armstrong Principle is formulated: the inverse problem of recovering EFO from the projection is fundamentally incorrect. Quantum superpositions are classified as non-objects at G_quantum, but become objects at G_classical, demonstrating the relational nature of ontological categories. A comparison is made with alternative interpretations: Copenhagen, Everett, decoherence, Tarasov, relational quantum mechanics (Rovelli), and QBism. A testing program is proposed through measurable markers (I_PA, K_G, I_ARD, η_info) with numerical thresholds. The article concludes with open questions and an invitation to collaboration. Keywords: EFOS, EFO, quantum object, superposition, collapse, decoherence, projection, G, semigroup, Armstrong Principle, renormalization group, I_PA, K_G.
This article offers a systematic interpretation of quantum objects within the ontology of EFOS (Entity That Forming Objects and Subjects). Key concept explained: EFO (Entity Forming Objects) is the hypothetical source of all objects that are not subjects: stars, planets, stones, elementary particles. EFO is not itself an object—it generates them, projects them into reality. Think of it as a projector that creates an image, but the projector itself is not visible on the screen. It is shown that quantum objects — superpositions, entangled states — can be understood as projections of EFOS at the quantum level of description (G = quantum). Superposition is interpreted as a "pre-projection sector" onto the classical register: a state in which an entity has not yet been projected into classical ontology. Wave function collapse is interpreted as a change in the level of description G (quantum → classical), rather than as a physical process. The projection operator P(G) is shown to form a semigroup, not a group — projection is irreversible, and part of the information about the source remains in the kernel of the operator and cannot be recovered from the screen. Decoherence is interpreted as the irreversible loss of information in this kernel. The Armstrong Principle is formulated: the inverse problem of recovering EFO from the projection is fundamentally incorrect. Quantum superpositions are classified as non-objects at G_quantum, but become objects at G_classical, demonstrating the relational nature of ontological categories. A comparison is made with alternative interpretations: Copenhagen, Everett, decoherence, Tarasov, relational quantum mechanics (Rovelli), and QBism. A testing program is proposed through measurable markers (I_PA, K_G, I_ARD, η_info) with numerical thresholds. The article concludes with open questions and an invitation to collaboration. Keywords: EFOS, EFO, quantum object, superposition, collapse, decoherence, projection, G, semigroup, Armstrong Principle, renormalization group, I_PA, K_G.
Quantum mechanics is empirically extraordinarily successful yet continues to admit a wide range of competing interpretations. While the formalism constrains probabilistic relations between preparation procedures, measurements, and outcomes, it does not uniquely determine the ontology that realises those relations. Interpretations such as Everettian quantum mechanics, Bohmian mechanics, objective collapse theories, relational quantum mechanics, and QBist approaches preserve the predictive structure of the theory while diverging sharply in their metaphysical commitments. At the same time, developments within quantum theory itself weaken the classical ontology of independently existing objects with intrinsic properties. Entanglement, violations of Bell inequalities, and decoherence theory collectively support the view that physical description is fundamentally relational. Structural realism therefore provides a natural interpretive framework, treating the mathematical structure of physical theory as ontologically primary. However, structural realism alone leaves open the question of instantiation: how relational organisation becomes concrete as a determinate world.This paper develops Experiential Structural Ontology (ESO) as a non-interventionist interpretation of quantum mechanics that addresses this problem. ESO retains the relational ontology suggested by quantum theory while proposing that relational constraint organisation is enacted as manifestation within a fundamental experiential field. On this interpretation, the wavefunction represents relational constraint architecture governing transitions within this field, measurement corresponds to the stabilisation of particular regimes within that structure, and decoherence explains the emergence of classical stability without invoking collapse dynamics or ontological branching.
Quantum mechanics is based on fundamental notions such as the wave function,superposition, probability, measurement, entanglement, and nonlocality. These no-tions are remarkably successful from both mathematical and experimental points ofview, yet they raise deep conceptual questions. Is the wave function a real physicalobject or only a computational tool? Does superposition mean that an object reallyexists in several states at once? Does entanglement imply an instantaneous actionat a distance? Is probability fundamental, or does it arise from partial information?In this article, we propose an exploratory relational interpretation of these no-tions within a discrete framework based on the additive group (nZ, +). In thisframework, the fundamental entities are not isolated objects, nor points of a pre-existing spacetime, but indexed relational degrees of freedom. A physical confgura-tion is described by a global relational scene, and admissible scenes are selected bya relational master equation derived from a coherence functional.The aim is not to deny the empirical success of quantum mechanics, but topropose a conceptual dictionary in which the wave function is interpreted as anefective representation of a deeper relational structure. In this perspective, su-perposition becomes a composition of compatible relations, entanglement becomesrelational non-separability, measurement becomes relational selection, and probabil-ity becomes an efective description associated with the observer’s partial access tothe global structure.
We demonstrate that quantum and classical physics are not contradictory theories requiring reconciliation. They are different projections of the same relational structure onto incompatible bases. The Translation Principle formalizes this as precise mathematical structure with a two-layer ontology. Layer 0 (Fundamental): The coherence manifold M — coherence-rich, pre-geometric, non-local, fully specified, unitarily evolving. Contains more information than any classical description can represent. Layer 1 (Emergent): Classical projections extracting partial structure — geometric, local by construction, necessarily incomplete. Each projection operator Pi_i maps M onto a reduced representation, selecting a basis and discarding relational degrees of freedom that do not fit the frame. Core results: - Non-commutativity as projection geometry. Two classical views appear incompatible when their projection operators do not commute: [Pi_i, Pi_j] != 0. The order of observation determines the classical reality obtained. Neither projection is wrong — each is partial and order-dependent. - Translation law: mapping between classical descriptions requires manifold reference. Pi_j(M) = T_{i->j}(Pi_i(M)). Direct translation between classical projections is impossible without accessing M — proven formally. This explains why quantum foundations remains puzzling when approached classically. - Loss and surplus maps: every projection trades classical definiteness for discarded relational structure. Loss maps describe which coherence is destroyed; surplus maps describe what becomes measurable. - Measurement problem resolved: measurement does not collapse the manifold. It couples the system to an external channel that enforces a specific projection operator. The manifold evolves unitarily throughout. Definite outcomes emerge from projection stabilization, not collapse. - Wave-particle duality dissolved: one relational structure, two incompatible projections. Pi_wave discards localization, preserves phase. Pi_particle discards phase, preserves localization. Complementarity becomes projection non-commutativity. - Entanglement resolved: entangled systems share a single coherence manifold. Spatial separation appears only after projection into classical coordinates. No signal propagates — shared relational structure persists. Non-locality is projection artifact. - Preferred basis explained: position dominates classical reality because it minimizes correction cost under environmental coupling. Not fundamental — cheapest to maintain. Systems that actively protect coherence (superconductors, lasers, BEC) temporarily flip the preferred basis. - Pointer states explained: not selected by environment as special rule. They survive because everything else is too expensive to maintain. Formation attractors with lowest D:C ratio. - Four testable predictions: projection reversibility (confirmed by quantum eraser experiments), basis cost hierarchy (consistent with decoherence measurements), manifold coherence detection in macroscopic systems, and translation operator universality across physical domains. - Relationship to quantum interpretations: Copenhagen partially correct (measurement matters, but no collapse needed), Many-worlds unnecessary (single manifold with multiple projections, no branching), Bohmian mechanics replaced (explicit manifold structure operating non-classically), QBism grounded (quantum states as projection operators, not pure subjectivity). Provides ontological foundation for the entire coherence framework: Coherence-Gated Formation describes when projections stabilize, Coherence Propagation Constant governs how long they persist, and the RMAxt gradient equation provides the mathematical backbone connecting all three. Part of the Coherence Institute publication sequence (Track B9). This paper answers the foundational question: what is being projected? The answer — coherence manifolds containing full relational structure — grounds all subsequent physics in the framework.
Standard interpretations of quantum mechanics often maintain that physical reality is incomplete until it is observed, or else that the collapse of the wave function constitutes a fundamental ontological event associated with the act of measurement. Such readings conflate observation with physical interaction and reify the theory’s formalism into a metaphysics of indeterminacy. This paper proposes a reinterpretation of the collapse of the wave function as an effective, post-realization phenomenon: a descriptive projection that occurs within a globally relational state that is ontologically determined. By integrating decoherence theory, an analysis of the double-slit experiment, and a reinforced block-universe model, it is argued that quantum entities do not alternate between wave-like and corpuscular natures. Rather, different experimental regimes restrict the degrees of freedom accessible to local description, yielding distinct empirical manifestations. This approach preserves determinism, avoids an observer-dependent ontology, and provides a non-mystical explanation of quantum entanglement grounded in the ontological primacy of global relational structure over local spatiotemporal description.
Operatoric Research CorpusStudies in World-Formation Section I Ontology and Physics Volume 2 The Ontological Limits of Physical ExplanationMeasurement, Collapse and Boundary Phenomena in Quantum Physics This volume brings together a series of contributions on the ontology of fundamental problems in physics, in particular the measurement problem of quantum mechanics, the collapse of the wave function, the relationship between quantum mechanics and relativity theory, as well as boundary phenomena such as black holes, renormalization, and vacuum energy. The point of departure of these investigations is the thesis that numerous paradoxes of modern physics do not primarily result from insufficient physical theories, but from a categorical misaddressing. Transitions that concern the very conditions of world stability—especially the transition from possibility to facticity—are often interpreted as dynamical processes within an already stabilized world. This gives rise to explanatory programs that attempt to bridge this boundary by means of additional mechanisms, ontologies, or informational structures. The texts collected in this volume pursue an alternative strategy. They understand the so-called collapse of the wave function not as a physical process, but as an irreversible constriction of a space of possibility through which objectivity and the direction of time first emerge at all. The concept of indimergence designates the boundary act in which possibility passes into facticity without itself being describable as an event within the world. On the basis of this determination, central approaches in the foundations of quantum mechanics—particularly dynamical collapse models, Many-Worlds interpretations, and information-theoretic ontologies—are comparatively analyzed. It becomes evident that, despite their differences, they share a common presupposition: the assumption that the transition from possibility to facticity must itself be explicable within physical description. The contributions in this volume instead propose to read the measurement problem and related paradoxes as indications of structural limits of physical description. From this perspective, other fundamental problems—such as the tension between quantum mechanics and relativity theory, the information paradoxes of black holes, or divergences in field theory—no longer appear primarily as unsolved technical puzzles, but as boundary phenomena of world formation itself. The volume therefore does not present itself as an alternative physical theory, but as an ontological clarification of the conditions under which physical theories are able to describe a world at all.
Standard quantum mechanics poses serious challenges to some principles deeply entrenched in traditional metaphysics. In particular, the theory defies the ontological category of individual object through three of its features: contextuality, non-separability, and indistinguishability. The difficulties have prompted the development of non-traditional ontological frameworks intended to account for the quantum domain. Some approaches advocate replacing the classical conception of a realm of objects endowed with properties by an ontology that either dispenses with the category of object altogether or treats it as a derivative notion. The Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation (MHI) of quantum mechanics and Ontic Structural Realism (OSR) exemplify this position. MHI proposes an ontology in which quantum systems are non-objectual bundles of properties linked by definite physical relations. The OSR defends the ontological primacy of structures, within which objects are construed as nodes of relations. The aim of this article is to compare these two ontological approaches, highlighting both their points of convergence and their divergences, particularly in light of the ontological challenges posed by quantum mechanics. With this aim, the article is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the ontology of MHI, introducing the distinction between type-properties and case-properties, characterizing quantum systems as non-objectual bundles, and analyzing the role of symmetry groups in providing physical content to the theory and governing actualization. Section 3 turns to OSR, examining its motivations, its distinction between physical and mathematical structures, and the modal character of structures. Section 4 offers a systematic comparison of the two approaches, considering their respective motivations and scope, their shared commitment to an object-free ontology, the role played by symmetry groups within each framework, and their contrasting interpretations of modality. Finally, Section 5 presents some concluding remarks.