This deposit contains the complete English translation of v1.1 (4 September 2026) of the preprint “Temps propre et temps ontologique : densité de devenir et champ des possibles dans le présentisme probabiliste”. Published French source and related work Published French v1.1: Zenodo 22306324 — DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22306324 Concept DOI for the French work: 10.5281/zenodo.20764379 Reference preprint on probabilistic presentism: 10.5281/zenodo.18207811 Related preprint on wave–particle duality and delayed choice: 10.5281/zenodo.18404150 Scope. This preprint distinguishes coordinate time, relativistic proper time, and ontological time understood as a cumulative measure of locally consolidated becoming. Formal proposal. It introduces the local consolidation density Θ = dτont/dτ and relates it, as a working hypothesis, to the field of possibilities π through Θ = f(π). Coordinate time t remains descriptive, proper time τ remains the duration measured by clocks, and ontological time τont denotes accumulated becoming. Safeguards and limits. The proposal does not replace relativistic proper time, treat Θ as a metric factor, introduce a global simultaneity, derive the limiting speed c from the actualization rate, or claim a complete covariant dynamics. The relation Θ = f(π) remains a hypothesis whose separate empirical identifiability is not yet established. Status. This is a conceptual and exploratory preprint. Interpretive claims are identified as such, and the framework is not presented as an experimentally validated replacement for relativity or quantum mechanics. Translation fidelity. This English edition is a translation, not a revised scientific version. It preserves the 333 content blocks, 79 headings, 324 mathematical expressions, 10 URLs, references, appendices, limitations, and epistemic qualifications of the published French v1.1.
This deposit contains the complete English translation of v1.1 (4 September 2026) of the preprint “Temps propre et temps ontologique : densité de devenir et champ des possibles dans le présentisme probabiliste”. Published French source and related work Published French v1.1: Zenodo 22306324 — DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22306324 Concept DOI for the French work: 10.5281/zenodo.20764379 Reference preprint on probabilistic presentism: 10.5281/zenodo.18207811 Related preprint on wave–particle duality and delayed choice: 10.5281/zenodo.18404150 Scope. This preprint distinguishes coordinate time, relativistic proper time, and ontological time understood as a cumulative measure of locally consolidated becoming. Formal proposal. It introduces the local consolidation density Θ = dτont/dτ and relates it, as a working hypothesis, to the field of possibilities π through Θ = f(π). Coordinate time t remains descriptive, proper time τ remains the duration measured by clocks, and ontological time τont denotes accumulated becoming. Safeguards and limits. The proposal does not replace relativistic proper time, treat Θ as a metric factor, introduce a global simultaneity, derive the limiting speed c from the actualization rate, or claim a complete covariant dynamics. The relation Θ = f(π) remains a hypothesis whose separate empirical identifiability is not yet established. Status. This is a conceptual and exploratory preprint. Interpretive claims are identified as such, and the framework is not presented as an experimentally validated replacement for relativity or quantum mechanics. Translation fidelity. This English edition is a translation, not a revised scientific version. It preserves the 333 content blocks, 79 headings, 324 mathematical expressions, 10 URLs, references, appendices, limitations, and epistemic qualifications of the published French v1.1.
This deposit contains the complete English translation of v1 (28 January 2026) of the preprint “Dualité onde-corpuscule, choix retardé et présentisme probabiliste”. Published French source and related work Published French v1: Zenodo 18404150 — DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18404150 Concept DOI for the French work: 10.5281/zenodo.18404149 Reference preprint on probabilistic presentism: 10.5281/zenodo.18207811 Scope. Wave–particle duality and delayed-choice experiments are often presented as if present choices could rewrite the past. This article develops an alternative reading within probabilistic presentism: only the present exists ontologically, while the future corresponds to a structured space of possibilities. Central distinction. The wave aspect describes a coherent structure of possibilities before actualization; the particle aspect describes a present fact in the form of a localized event. The “late choice” fixes the experimental context in which a fact becomes defined; it does not retroactively alter an already factual past. Experiments and constraints. The discussion covers Born's rule, interference, which-path information, decoherence, outcome uniqueness, no-signalling, the double slit, Wheeler's delayed choice, delayed-choice quantum erasers, and EPR/Bell correlations. Conditional interference patterns are treated as post-selected correlations and not as signals sent into the past. Status. This is a conceptual and exploratory preprint. Interpretive claims are identified as such, and the framework is not presented as an experimentally validated replacement for quantum mechanics. Translation fidelity. This English edition is a translation, not a revised scientific version. It preserves the argumentative structure, equations, references, links, limitations, and epistemic qualifications of the published French v1.
Ce dépôt contient la version française publiée v1.1 (4 septembre 2026) du préprint « Temps propre et temps ontologique : densité de devenir et champ des possibles dans le présentisme probabiliste ». Versions publiées et travaux liés DOI concept (toutes les versions françaises) : 10.5281/zenodo.20764379 Traduction anglaise fidèle v1.1-en : 10.5281/zenodo.22678502 Préprint principal sur le présentisme probabiliste : 10.5281/zenodo.18207811 Préprint connexe sur la dualité onde-corpuscule et le choix retardé : 10.5281/zenodo.18404150 Portée. Ce préprint distingue le temps coordonné, le temps propre relativiste et le temps ontologique, compris comme mesure cumulative du devenir localement consolidé. Proposition formelle. Il introduit la densité locale de consolidation Θ = dτont/dτ et la relie, à titre d’hypothèse de travail, au champ des possibles π par Θ = f(π). Le temps coordonné t reste descriptif, le temps propre τ demeure la durée mesurée par les horloges, et le temps ontologique τont désigne le devenir accumulé. Garde-fous et limites. La proposition ne remplace pas le temps propre relativiste, ne traite pas Θ comme un facteur métrique, n’introduit aucune simultanéité globale, ne dérive pas la vitesse limite c du rythme d’actualisation et ne revendique pas une dynamique covariante complète. La relation Θ = f(π) demeure une hypothèse dont l’identifiabilité empirique séparée n’est pas encore établie. Statut. Il s’agit d’un préprint conceptuel et exploratoire. Les affirmations interprétatives sont signalées comme telles, et le cadre n’est pas présenté comme un remplacement expérimentalement validé de la relativité ou de la mécanique quantique. Édition anglaise. La version 1.1-en est une traduction fidèle, et non une révision scientifique. Elle conserve les 333 blocs de contenu, 79 titres, 324 expressions mathématiques, 10 URL, références, annexes, limites et qualifications épistémiques de cette version française.
Overview This deposit contains version 1.0-en of Feedback Loops and Actualization: Memory, Context, and Reshaping the Field of Possibilities in Probabilistic Presentism, a faithful English translation of the published French version 1.0 (4 September 2026). Objective The paper proposes a conceptual formalization of feedback loops within probabilistic presentism. Feedback is not treated as a return from the future to the past, but as a local dynamics of the present: actualized facts leave present traces, these traces modify the local context, and that context reshapes the field of possibilities for subsequent actualizations. Formal proposal The enriched local present is represented by Fn(x)=(sn(x), Mn(x), Cn(x), πn(x)). The scalar π measures a local degree of canalization; it is distinct from the operational kernel K, which carries the detailed distribution and direction of accessible transitions. The minimal loop is sn → A → sn+1 → T → Mn+1 → G → Cn+1 → R → πn+1 → A → sn+2. The proposed relation Θ=f(π) requires calibration before a change in π can receive an identifiable temporal interpretation. Safeguards and limits Feedback is distinguished from retrocausality: the past acts only through traces presently inscribed. An anticipated future does not act; anticipation is a present model of possible futures. The proposal assumes no signalling to the past and no global present, and retains the thermodynamic constraints on memory. The operators A, T, G and R do not yet constitute a complete covariant physical dynamics, and no quantitative law for π is claimed. Status This is a conceptual and programmatic preprint. It proposes a minimal grammar of feedback loops within probabilistic presentism without claiming to provide a complete quantitative theory of dynamical systems, cognition, or quantum measurement. Related works French source, version 1.0: 10.5281/zenodo.22307131 Main preprint: 10.5281/zenodo.18207811 Wave-particle duality and delayed choice: 10.5281/zenodo.18404150 Proper and ontological time: 10.5281/zenodo.22306324 Translation fidelity The English edition preserves all 322 content blocks, 79 headings, 209 mathematical expressions, 14 URLs, numbers, tables, qualifications, appendices and references of the authoritative French source. All 24 rendered pages were visually reviewed.
A Calculable Model in One, Two, and Three Spatial Dimensions This preprint develops a first calculable basis for the treatment of records and feedback in probabilistic presentism. It introduces the V3 reconstruction through an explicit quantum model, retaining potentialities through the joint quantum state while removing an additional scalar degree of actualization. Model and contribution A propagating excitation couples locally to a two-state memory. The resulting record remains readable over a declared finite interval. A fixed reflector returns the excitation, and interventions on the memory affect its later field evolution. A sufficient storage bound follows from occupation of the interaction region. The same scalar lattice law is implemented in one, two and three spatial dimensions. Reproducibility The accompanying archive contains the simulation programs, 24 reference runs, 12 step/domain comparisons, four calculated figures, independent solver checks, storage-bound counter-tests, spatial-snapshot audits and instructions. The reference batch was reproduced from an extracted package in the recorded environment. A CPU is sufficient; no GPU dependency is required. Scope Quantum dynamics, Born probabilities and the terminal reading instrument are adopted. The results establish properties of the declared finite model. Physical outcome selection, emergent duration relations, gravity, continuum Maxwell electrodynamics and experimental discrimination of the ontology remain open. This is a partial calculable formulation of the presentist programme. Related publications and provenance Main V2: French original, 10 January 2026, 10.5281/zenodo.18207811; English translation 2.0-en, 9 September 2026, 10.5281/zenodo.22675807. Wave-particle duality: French original, 28 January 2026, 10.5281/zenodo.18404150; English translation 1.0-en, 9 September 2026, 10.5281/zenodo.22677490. Feedback loops: French original, 4 September 2026, 10.5281/zenodo.22307131; English translation 1.0-en, 9 September 2026, 10.5281/zenodo.22678920. Files and licenses The PDF contains the illustrated article. The ZIP contains the manuscript source, PDF, programs, figures, data, audits, instructions and license notices. Text, figures and data are licensed under CC BY 4.0; software source is licensed under MIT. These licenses apply to the respective components described in LICENSES.md. Author: Alexandre Leroy. Affiliation: LA RESIDENCE Développement. Independent research in theoretical physics and the philosophy of time. Contact: a.leroy.research@gmail.com.
SCQG Paper 4 of 28 This paper explains how different physical ways of measuring and ordering time relate to one another. Proper time is defined by the spacetime metric along a path. A material clock produces a reading through its own dynamics and calibration. A detector writes a timestamp, and exchanged signals allow separate clocks to be synchronized. A temporal bridge is a map connecting such coordinates under stated physical conditions. Semantic time counts or orders the interactions through which a physical distinction becomes usable, compared, or maintained. Forward actionability is the resolution of uncertainty into a distinction that a later operation can use. Local grounding depends on forward action making that resolution available to a local interaction; measurement realizes the grounding by writing a registration. Access to a readable record, inference meeting a specified accuracy test, and completed durable maintenance have separate first-success times. The paper derives causal access conditions, timing bounds for finite detector windows, synchronization errors, and relations between physical clock time and interaction counts. It defines agreement between event orders and entrainment: agreement maintained through physical coupling over a stated interval. It also distinguishes the accumulated interaction count from the records that remain readable. Applications include quantum clocks, accelerated observers, black-hole observations, cosmological modes, delayed-choice experiments, and reciprocal cosmological coordinates. Each connection states the physical systems, operations, units, calibration, and conditions under which it holds. Commitment Time, Metric Time, and Physical Temporal Interfaces Proper Time, Clocks, Synchronization, Addressability, and Durable Commitment This work develops a unified physical architecture for the many different quantities that physics calls “time.” Modern theories routinely move between coordinate time, proper time, clock readings, detector timestamps, synchronization conventions, thermodynamic arrows, quantum relational clocks, record formation, inference, and historical reconstruction. These quantities are often written with the same symbol t even though they arise from different physical systems and perform different roles. The central claim of this paper is that temporal quantities are strongly typed. A proper-time interval is generated by a metric and a worldline. A clock reading is generated by a material clock, a readout instrument, and a calibration. A detector timestamp is generated by switching, response, record formation, and estimation. A shared operational time is generated by signal exchange and a maintained clock ledger. Semantic time is generated by physically realized interactions that create addressable distinctions. Thermodynamic time is generated by routed physical exchange. Modular time is generated by an algebra–state pair. Lifecycle time is generated by a branch-history coordinate. These temporal objects can be compared, synchronized, or mapped into one another only through explicit physical bridges. Numerical agreement does not make them the same object. The paper collects the principal temporal coordinates into the owner-complete family 𝔗ₑₓₜ(Ξ)= (t, τγ, qC, τ̂C, Tₒₚ, Iᴰ, t̂ₑ, τˢᵉᵐₚᵣₒₚ, Tᵣₑc, Tₐddr, Tcmp, Tinf, Tlock, τedge, smod, u). Here: t is a coordinate parameter; τγ is metric proper time along a worldline γ; qC is the raw output of a physical clock C; τ̂C is a calibrated estimate derived from that output; Tₒₚ is synchronized operational time constructed through signal exchange and a maintained timing ledger; Iᴰ is the detector’s physical operating support; t̂ₑ is an estimated timestamp assigned to an event e; τˢᵉᵐₚᵣₒₚ counts physically realized semantic interaction steps; Tᵣₑc is the first time an extant carrier becomes readable as a record; Tₐddr is the first time the record becomes physically addressable; Tcmp is the first realized comparison time; Tinf is an inference stopping time; Tlock is the time at which a commitment enters a durable shared ledger; τedge is a coordinate generated by routed thermodynamic export; smod is a modular-flow parameter; u is a lifecycle gauge. The complete package Ξ includes the event, worldline or interaction process, clock subsystem, detector, ledger, route data, calibration data, and any thermodynamic, modular, horizon, or lifecycle structure used by the selected branch. A temporal bridge is represented as a partial typed map: ℬA→B : Dom(ℬA→B) ⊆ 𝕋A × ℝA→B → 𝕋B. Every bridge must identify its source type, target type, carrier, causal support, units, domain, calibration, hypotheses, thresholds, uncertainty, exchange law, and failure surface. When the bridge fails, the source temporal quantity remains meaningful; the target comparison simply remains undefined. This framework replaces the assumption of one universal temporal variable with a network of physically realized temporal interfaces. Relativistic addressability Relativistic causal support is necessary for an event to become available at a later anchor: x ∉ J⁺(e) ⇒ qᵛᵃˡₑ,ₓ = 0. An event outside the causal future J⁺(e) cannot be physically delivered to x. Causal accessibility alone is not sufficient. A record becomes addressable only when a surviving carrier reaches the anchor, enters the detector’s operating support, passes the decoder and validation gates, and is written into an actionable register. The paper therefore distinguishes: causal reach,physical delivery,readability,addressability,comparison,inference,and durable commitment. These stages may occur at different times, and some may never occur. Proper time and physical clocks Proper time is generated by metric geometry along a worldline. A material clock is a dynamical system that evolves along that worldline. Its displayed value is a physical measurement outcome, not proper time itself. A clock reading becomes an estimate of proper time only through a calibration map. Periodic clocks also require cycle provenance: the phase shown on a dial does not by itself identify how many complete cycles have elapsed. The paper proves that proper time and clock readout remain type-distinct even when the clock is highly accurate. Their numerical agreement is produced by a calibrated physical bridge. This distinction becomes decisive in accelerated motion, gravitational redshift, horizon-limited observation, finite detector windows, and quantum clocks. Synchronization and clock ledgers Synchronization is not a property that two distant clocks possess automatically. It is produced through signal exchange, a propagation model, calibration, and a maintained ledger of timing relations. Two-way timing protocols contain route-dependent biases whenever the outward and return propagation conditions differ. A synchronization convention can remove some ambiguity only after the propagation model and admissible equivalence class have been declared. Operational time is therefore a constructed relational product. It belongs to the clock network and its synchronization procedure, not to either clock in isolation. The paper separates static order agreement from dynamical entrainment. Two clocks can preserve the same event ordering without matching rates, phases, or physical mechanisms. Semantic time and interaction anchors Semantic time records the order in which physical distinctions become available for downstream action. Its basic increment occurs at a realized interaction anchor: emission, scattering, absorption, detection, amplification, decoding, comparison, or record formation. Free propagation between anchors carries causal support but does not create an intermediate semantic tick. For a free null carrier, ds² = 0, and the carrier accumulates no proper time. The same free segment also produces no intermediate semantic-interaction increment: Δτˢᵉᵐₚᵣₒₚ = 0. The timelike source and receiver can accumulate proper time, operate clocks, and create records. The freely propagating null carrier connects those interactions without generating a chain of local commitment events between them. This gives a precise temporal account of photons, communication channels, interferometers, and delayed-choice experiments. Finite measurement duration Measurement is not instantaneous. Every physical detector has an operating window, switching dynamics, response latency, finite bandwidth, resolution limits, and a nonzero probability of failure. A timestamp is generated only after the detector response has been transformed into a record and processed by an estimator. The achievable precision depends on the measurement duration, signal energy, distinguishability, detector dynamics, and calibration. The paper keeps three limits separate: the quantum speed limit governing how quickly states can become distinguishable; the detector’s finite response and operating support; the statistical precision of the timestamp estimator. Records, inference, and durable commitment A registration can exist before it becomes readable. A readable record can exist before it becomes semantically addressable. An addressable record can exist before comparison. An inference can be reached before the result is locked into a durable shared ledger. The corresponding stopping times satisfy no universal equality: Tᵣₑc ≠ Tₐddr ≠ Tcmp ≠ Tinf ≠ Tlock. Their order depends on the realized physical architecture. A durable commitment requires more than a transient signal. It requires a surviving carrier, decoding, validation, admission, maintenance, and sufficient resistance to noise and decay. The paper distinguishes live semantic activity from durable recorded stock. A system may be processing and transmitting information without having written a stable commitment. Conversely, a durable record may survive after the process that created it has ended. Quantum clocks and relational dynamics
Quantum mechanics describes the potential future; general relativity describes the actualized past; the present is the process of actualization that turns the one into the other. That single move is Time–Actualization (TA), the foundational ontology set out here. TA assumes the quantum formalism and the relativistic causal structure, and derives neither: it adds no new physics, makes no new prediction, and asks to be judged on coherence and unifying power rather than on a measurement. It proposes a common ontological reading of measurement, EPR and the structural arrow of time. D5 locates the einselecting environment in the event's causal past; the couplings within that past remain imported, and the system/environment split is relocated rather than removed. In detail. The ontology is a minimal triplet (ρ, ν, ⟨P,≺⟩): a positive normalized state ρ on a local net of algebras (the conditional future potential), a primitive tempo ν (the rate of becoming), and a growing causal set ⟨P,≺⟩ (the past). What is not derived, and is named as such throughout, is the Born rule, Einstein's equations, and the constants. Eight core hypotheses yield seven consequences. A structural arrow of time, prior to thermodynamics (D1). A partial dissolution of the measurement problem (D2), with definiteness posited and the trigger open. Conditional dissolutions of EPR and the signalling worry (D3–D4), requiring a propagation law. A preferred basis anchored in the couplings carried by the causal past (D5). A conditional thermodynamic reading of the structural arrow (D6), requiring a posited bridge to physical reset, and further thermal assumptions for its value. And a conditional coherence lemma (D7): the actualization dynamics is generally covariant and no-signalling once the substrate carries the standard locality of physics. D7 claims less than the Rideout–Sorkin Bell causality condition, which is a screening-off analogue of Bell's local causality and is not inherited. We then develop the proposed physics of the tempo ν: a correspondence with a local quantum speed scale and a saturation choice, both posited. Quantum speed limits alone do not bound an ontic event count. The missing bridge must specify event resolution, additive counting and an applicable composable speed bound. The substrate cadence that reconstructs proper time is kept distinct from a system's tempo; their operational connection remains to be supplied. TA aims at empirical equivalence to quantum mechanics on a causal-set substrate. We label the admissibility requirement P5; its verification, including instrumented multi-time statistics, remains open. No distinctive prediction is claimed. The causal-set "swerve" is inherited from discreteness, generic and not specific to actualization. We close with the open dynamics, its system/substrate interface, the conditional constitution of systems, and the inherited limits of the programme.