This article develops a contextual Boolean formalization of the Bell-Bohm-Modal-Thomistic (BBMT) model under the provisional name Contextual Ontological Actualization Framework (COAF). Its central thesis is deliberately limited: Boolean algebra does not prove the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics of potency and actuality, but it can represent, within compatible quantum contexts, a disciplined sequence of determination, modality, actualization, and renewed determination. That is, it aims to show a path to accessing analogical ontology from BBMT. In this case, the idea is to maximize the algebraic route and postpone conceptual interpretation until the last moment. As I will show in subsequent articles, other options exist, but for now we will follow this path. Under this proposal, the global network of quantum propositions is distinguished from Boolean subalgebras associated with compatible observables, while a privileged beable algebra linked to position is examined as the domain in which a defined valuation can be assigned without postulating a prohibited global valuation1. On the other hand, the transition from physical-mathematical structure to ontology is governed neither by univocal identity nor by equivocal separation, but by a composite analogy. At this point, it is necessary to keep in mind two elements of the realist ontological framework that inspire BBMT-COAF: 1) Reality is divided into actual and potential; that is, potency is part of reality, because otherwise it would be impossible for a being to become actual. 2) The entity, as a transcendental concept, is analogous, and this analogy is twofold: it possesses a horizontal dimension expressed in proportionality and a vertical dimension expressed in its attributive predicability. This last element is the position subscribed to by the author in the discussion of specialists, which should be taken beforehand as a hermeneutical prejudice. Horizontally, a proper proportionality analogy compares the relation between physical possibility and physical actuality with that between potentiality and act. Vertically, an analogy of intrinsic attribution orders physical actuality and potentiality to their ontological analogs. Building on Ángel González Álvarez's synthesis of the Thomistic analogy and Santiago Ramírez's proposed correction to the Cayetano-Suárez opposition, this work also clarifies the conception of being that should govern the interpretation: a being is not an abstract logical unity, but rather the inseparable unity of essence and existence, intrinsically realized in diverse ways. Consequently, COAF is presented as a research program and a formal correspondence, not as a deduction of ontology from quantum mechanics. Furthermore, we must not forget that we are attempting to demonstrate that the analogical realist interpretation is not contradictory; that is, we begin with analogy and then demonstrate that this interpretive option of scientific realism does not lead to contradiction. This technique does not imply circularity and is used in various sciences when direct demonstration, whether experimental or deductive, is not possible. It thus proves that a proposition considered true will maintain this condition as long as no derived contradiction is found. Moreover, we must also remember that the BBMT model and its COAF form part of a hermeneutic and, consequently, interpretive thesis.
This article develops a contextual Boolean formalization of the Bell-Bohm-Modal-Thomistic (BBMT) model under the provisional name Contextual Ontological Actualization Framework (COAF). Its central thesis is deliberately limited: Boolean algebra does not prove the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics of potency and actuality, but it can represent, within compatible quantum contexts, a disciplined sequence of determination, modality, actualization, and renewed determination. That is, it aims to show a path to accessing analogical ontology from BBMT. In this case, the idea is to maximize the algebraic route and postpone conceptual interpretation until the last moment. As I will show in subsequent articles, other options exist, but for now we will follow this path. Under this proposal, the global network of quantum propositions is distinguished from Boolean subalgebras associated with compatible observables, while a privileged beable algebra linked to position is examined as the domain in which a defined valuation can be assigned without postulating a prohibited global valuation1. On the other hand, the transition from physical-mathematical structure to ontology is governed neither by univocal identity nor by equivocal separation, but by a composite analogy. At this point, it is necessary to keep in mind two elements of the realist ontological framework that inspire BBMT-COAF: 1) Reality is divided into actual and potential; that is, potency is part of reality, because otherwise it would be impossible for a being to become actual. 2) The entity, as a transcendental concept, is analogous, and this analogy is twofold: it possesses a horizontal dimension expressed in proportionality and a vertical dimension expressed in its attributive predicability. This last element is the position subscribed to by the author in the discussion of specialists, which should be taken beforehand as a hermeneutical prejudice. Horizontally, a proper proportionality analogy compares the relation between physical possibility and physical actuality with that between potentiality and act. Vertically, an analogy of intrinsic attribution orders physical actuality and potentiality to their ontological analogs. Building on Ángel González Álvarez's synthesis of the Thomistic analogy and Santiago Ramírez's proposed correction to the Cayetano-Suárez opposition, this work also clarifies the conception of being that should govern the interpretation: a being is not an abstract logical unity, but rather the inseparable unity of essence and existence, intrinsically realized in diverse ways. Consequently, COAF is presented as a research program and a formal correspondence, not as a deduction of ontology from quantum mechanics. Furthermore, we must not forget that we are attempting to demonstrate that the analogical realist interpretation is not contradictory; that is, we begin with analogy and then demonstrate that this interpretive option of scientific realism does not lead to contradiction. This technique does not imply circularity and is used in various sciences when direct demonstration, whether experimental or deductive, is not possible. It thus proves that a proposition considered true will maintain this condition as long as no derived contradiction is found. Moreover, we must also remember that the BBMT model and its COAF form part of a hermeneutic and, consequently, interpretive thesis.
This condensed version presents BBMT (Bell–Bohm–Modal–Thomistic) as a controlled interpretative bridge between contemporary Scientific Realism and the analogical ontology of Classical Realism. The construction begins from Bell’s requirement of beables as a mind-independent physical referent, specifies that referent through Bohmian particle configuration and guidance, and introduces the Modal Interpretation to distinguish dynamical and value states as the quantum-modal poles of possibility and actuality. Contextual Boolean algebra is retained as a formal control of modal determination rather than as an additional constitutive component. The decisive transition from M to T is semantic and ontological rather than deductive: Frege’s distinction between sense and reference permits preservation of the physical referent under a change of sense; Thomistic formal abstraction legitimizes the consideration of the same reality under different formal objects; participation grounds the restricted physical realization in a more universal ontological structure; and a combined analogy of proper proportionality and intrinsic attribution relates modal possibility/actuality to potency/act without univocal identification or equivocal rupture. BBMT therefore ascends epistemically from quantum physical determination toward ontology while preserving the inverse direction of ontological priority. The model does not derive Thomistic ontology from quantum mechanics; it proposes a disciplined route by which a realist quantum referent may be interpreted under the act–potency structure and thereby reach the threshold of analogical being.
This article presents the introductory architecture of a doctoral investigation into the hermeneutical interpretation of twentieth-century theoretical physics. Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics are treated first according to their physical structures and then through Neo-Kantianism, Logical Empiricism, Scientific Realism, and the comparatively neglected alternative of Aristotelian-Thomistic Classical Realism. The central hypothesis is that these interpretative horizons can be examined according to predominant tendencies toward univocity, equivocity, and analogy, and that analogy may preserve realist reference without collapsing scientific representation into ontology. The investigation distinguishes physical description, philosophical interpretation, hermeneutical comparison, and ontological evaluation. Its principal constructive test is the Bell-Bohm-Modal-Thomistic (BBMT) model: Bell secures the realist demand for a physical referent; Bohmian mechanics specifies effective physical determination; Modal Interpretation distinguishes dynamical and value states; contextual Boolean algebra may supplement M as a formal control but is not a constitutive fifth component; and the decisive passage from M to T is mediated through Fregean sense/reference, formal abstraction, participation, and a combined analogy of proper proportionality and intrinsic attribution. The broader thesis is that these levels form a tripartite hermeneutical circle whose final evaluation bears on scientific interpretation, ontology, and the existential horizon of the reader1.
This article presents the methodology of a philosophical investigation into the interpretation of Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics. Its starting point is a methodological asymmetry: modern theoretical physics has generated a stable scientific core together with persistent and mutually incompatible philosophical interpretations, while the analogical realism of the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition has remained comparatively absent from that discussion. The method therefore combines two ordered moments. Description reconstructs the scientific theories and philosophical traditions with methodological restraint, distinguishing physical content from later ontological interpretation. Hermeneutical analysis then examines the relations among competing meanings without presupposing the tripartite classification it seeks to test. Causality and the principle of least action function as transversal analytical coordinates across Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics, while the uncertainty principle provides an additional coordinate specific to the quantum domain. Fregean sense/reference and the degrees of formal abstraction control transitions among logical, physical, and ontological levels. The Bell-Bohm-Modal-Thomistic (BBMT) model is introduced only as a later bridge to be tested, not as a premise of the descriptive stage. The methodological aim is to determine whether analogical realism can enter the hermeneutic circle of theoretical physics without altering the scientific formalism or collapsing distinct levels of discourse.
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.
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.
This article presents a critical–propositional examination of the foundational bibliography of quantum mechanics in confrontation with the Theory of Objectivity (TO). Drawing on the classical works of Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Born, Dirac, von Neumann, Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen, and Bell, the study investigates the extent to which the conceptual architecture of quantum mechanics can be reinterpreted under the modal discipline of TO. The paper argues that quantum mechanics, while extraordinarily successful as a mathematical and empirical framework for describing observable physical regimes, does not by itself exhaust the ontological conditions of intelligibility of the universe. In response, the article articulates the quantum bibliography with the foundational bibliography of TO, its recent developments in modal ontology and testability, and its supporting and dialogical bibliography in physics, cosmology, and philosophy of science. Special attention is given to possible compatibilities and points of tension between quantum theory and the Seven Absolute Truths of TO, as well as to the cosmogenic theorem, the phenomenic elements, the Inducer Effects, and the cosmological Eras of the Theory of Objectivity. In this framework, quantization, superposition, measurement, entanglement, decoherence, and the quantum vacuum are reread as phenomenic manifestations that may be disciplined by a deeper modal grammar. The article further proposes that the transcendent element, in TO terms, may be interpreted as knowledge or information produced in atomic relations and equivalent to atomic radiations. From this perspective, quantum mechanics is not rejected, but reinscribed within a broader ontological horizon in which relation, boundary, observation, and transcendence acquire foundational significance. By combining philosophical analysis, comparative ontology, and dialogue with contemporary observational physics, this study contributes to the development of a modal and testable research program in which the Theory of Objectivity serves as a discipline of intelligibility for quantum phenomena rather than as a mere external critique. Authors’ note: This article benefited from ChatGPT’s analytical support in bibliographic organization, comparative structuring, and the systematization of points of compatibility, tension, and testability. Keywords Theory of Objectivity; quantum mechanics; modal ontology; foundational physics; philosophy of quantum mechanics; Bell inequalities; EPR paradox; quantum vacuum; phenomenic elements; Inducer Effects; cosmogenic theorem; cosmological Eras; relational ontology; testability; contemporary cosmology