Modern physics has long held two opposing extreme viewpoints. Laplacean omniscient determinism states that once all initial conditions of a system are mastered, every future evolution state can be deduced. The intrinsic randomness interpretation in quantum mechanics attributes phenomena that cannot be precisely predicted to inherent randomness at the fundamental level of the universe. Based on the pure theoretical logic of bidirectional dynamic coupling among variables, this paper carries out analysis and argumentation. It proves that the universe strictly obeys the law of causality, and the objective evolution outcome possesses unique determinacy. System variables continuously interact and rewrite the states of one another in real time. This characteristic theoretically excludes the possibility of omniscient prediction. This paper endorses the core proposition of Einstein’s causal realism, distinguishes objective causal determinacy from the theoretical boundary of deductive capability. It points out that the quantum probability interpretation confuses cognitive limitation with the intrinsic property of matter. It also explains the resource tradeoff logic of approximate models in practical applications, and establishes a unified and self consistent framework for understanding causality in fundamental physics.
Modern physics has long held two opposing extreme viewpoints. Laplacean omniscient determinism states that once all initial conditions of a system are mastered, every future evolution state can be deduced. The intrinsic randomness interpretation in quantum mechanics attributes phenomena that cannot be precisely predicted to inherent randomness at the fundamental level of the universe. Based on the pure theoretical logic of bidirectional dynamic coupling among variables, this paper carries out analysis and argumentation. It proves that the universe strictly obeys the law of causality, and the objective evolution outcome possesses unique determinacy. System variables continuously interact and rewrite the states of one another in real time. This characteristic theoretically excludes the possibility of omniscient prediction. This paper endorses the core proposition of Einstein’s causal realism, distinguishes objective causal determinacy from the theoretical boundary of deductive capability. It points out that the quantum probability interpretation confuses cognitive limitation with the intrinsic property of matter. It also explains the resource tradeoff logic of approximate models in practical applications, and establishes a unified and self consistent framework for understanding causality in fundamental physics.
The core dilemma of modern physics stems from two unproven ontological presuppositions: that spacetime is an innate container preceding matter, and that matter is an entity composed of indivisible particles. These presuppositions have led to the fundamental split between general relativity and quantum mechanics, giving rise to a series of century-old unsolved problems such as wave-particle duality, the quantum measurement paradox, the nature of gravity, and dark matter and dark energy. Based on the sole unfalsifiable first principle that "the essence of cognition is succession", this paper deduces a complete ontological system through pure a priori reasoning: the authentic physical world consists solely of one-dimensional successive rays and their transverse coupling relations; time is the successive extension of rays, space is the network of coupling relations, matter is the steady state of closed coupling, and all interactions are different manifestations of coupling actions. Particles are not authentically existing entities, but rather point-like endpoint phenomena presented in the observer's phenomenal world when two rays undergo an all-or-nothing coupling. Based on this framework, this paper uniformly explains all core phenomena in both the microscopic quantum domain and the macroscopic relativistic domain in one go, resolves all traditional physical paradoxes at the ontological level, achieves the ontological unification of the four fundamental forces, and proposes three falsifiable core predictions. This paper demonstrates that all theories of traditional physics are approximate descriptions of the authentic physical world at the phenomenal level, and their fundamental error lies in mistaking "coupling endpoints" for "primitive entities", thereby reversing the causal relationship. Cognitive Succession Ontology provides a logically consistent and universally unified ultimate foundation for physics.
The incompatibility between quantum mechanics and relativity is not a lack of technical details, but a fundamental one—they are each built on distinct local invariants: quantum mechanics relies on gauge invariance, while relativity is based on Lorentz invariance. Starting from different mountain feet, they naturally cannot converge at the summit. What physicists are truly seeking is a global, absolute, and simple invariant—one that can govern all physical phenomena and serve as the common source of all physical laws. This paper proposes the Axiom of Cosmic Uniqueness: all events, physical states, particle configurations, and interaction relationships in the universe are strictly unique, and there are no two identical forms of existence. From the perspective of group theory, this axiom is the ultimate invariant that physicists have long pursued—because the attribute of "everything is unique" remains unchanged regardless of any transformation applied (temporal evolution, spatial translation, rotation, gauge transformation, etc.). Based on this single axiom, this paper argues that: · The essence of time is the sequential unfolding of unique states, and the unidirectionality of the arrow of time is a direct inference of uniqueness; · The essence of space is the topological structure of causal correlations between unique events; · Causality possesses absolute necessity, and the "randomness" in quantum mechanics is a cognitive limitation rather than physical reality; · Probability has no physical reality and is purely an instrumental approximation under cognitive limitations—because the definition of probability relies on "repeatable experiments", a premise negated by the Axiom of Cosmic Uniqueness; · The paradox of the origin of life is thus resolved: the origin of life has already occurred, and no probabilistic explanation is needed under the Axiom of Cosmic Uniqueness—the so-called "extremely low probability" is a pseudo-problem arising from the misapplication of the concept of probability to unique historical events. This axiom requires no presupposition of any physical laws, particle properties, or spacetime frameworks, and achieves self-consistency solely through ontological logic. It is a more fundamental global invariant than Lorentz invariance and gauge invariance, and can govern the core laws of classical physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, and cosmic evolution—for all of them are branches growing from this common source.
The incompatibility between quantum mechanics and relativity is not a lack of technical details, but a fundamental one—they are each built on distinct local invariants: quantum mechanics relies on gauge invariance, while relativity is based on Lorentz invariance. Starting from different mountain feet, they naturally cannot converge at the summit. What physicists are truly seeking is a global, absolute, and simple invariant—one that can govern all physical phenomena and serve as the common source of all physical laws.This paper proposes the Axiom of Cosmic Uniqueness: all events, physical states, particle configurations, and interaction relationships in the universe are strictly unique, and there are no two identical forms of existence. From the perspective of group theory, this axiom is the ultimate invariant that physicists have long pursued—because the attribute of "everything is unique" remains unchanged regardless of any transformation applied (temporal evolution, spatial translation, rotation, gauge transformation, etc.).Based on this single axiom, this paper argues that:· The essence of time is the sequential unfolding of unique states, and the unidirectionality of the arrow of time is a direct inference of uniqueness;· The essence of space is the topological structure of causal correlations between unique events;· Causality possesses absolute necessity, and the "randomness" in quantum mechanics is a cognitive limitation rather than physical reality;· Probability has no physical reality and is purely an instrumental approximation under cognitive limitations—because the definition of probability relies on "repeatable experiments", a premise negated by the Axiom of Cosmic Uniqueness;· The paradox of the origin of life is thus resolved: the origin of life has already occurred, and no probabilistic explanation is needed under the Axiom of Cosmic Uniqueness—the so-called "extremely low probability" is a pseudo-problem arising from the misapplication of the concept of probability to unique historical events.This axiom requires no presupposition of any physical laws, particle properties, or spacetime frameworks, and achieves self-consistency solely through ontological logic. It is a more fundamental global invariant than Lorentz invariance and gauge invariance, and can govern the core laws of classical physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, and cosmic evolution—for all of them are branches growing from this common source.
Mathematics is an artificial symbolic logical system whose evaluation standard lies only in internal self consistency. Its core function is to fit observed phenomena. When deduction hits obstacles, mathematics can expand definitions extend number fields or change calculation frameworks to bypass difficulties. As long as logic forms a closed loop this operation is valid within the scope of mathematics. Imaginary number systems and calculus are typical examples. They are internally self consistent and efficient for calculation as computing tools but the tools themselves do not equal objective reality. Mathematical systems face no punishment from objective reality. When contradictions appear in deduction researchers only need to adjust rules and refit data. Physics takes objective reality and causal chains independent of human cognition as its foundation. The only judging standard comes from the real natural world. Physics cannot bypass fundamental contradictions by makeshift assumptions. This paper clarifies a critical dividing line. Success in engineering application never proves the correctness of the underlying physical theory supporting that engineering. Many technical achievements come from empirical exploration and repeated trial and error. Researchers build devices and obtain effects first. Theories are proposed later to fit collected data. Those theories do not reveal the real causal mechanism in advance. Newtonian mechanics is an approximate description valid under limited conditions. It has clear application boundaries and its underlying causal framework does not deliberately avoid core contradictions. Interpretations such as superposition and Schrodinger cat that describes simultaneous life and death are different. They deliberately bypass microscopic dynamic mechanisms and modify the inherent properties of matter to adapt to mathematical frameworks. These two cases have essential differences. Even if a deviated underlying physical mechanism can produce usable calculation schemes or even drive engineering progress it does not prove the foundation is correct. If basic assumptions depart from reality all derived conclusions must be revised from the root instead of adding surface patches. Part of the difficulties in modern fundamental physics arise from three types of confusion. Confusion between mathematical fitting and physical reality. Confusion between empirical engineering success and the truth of underlying physical mechanism. Confusion between well bounded approximate theories and patchwork assumptions made to avoid contradictions. If researchers keep stacking derived models on a shifted physical foundation the system will accumulate internal inconsistencies. Even with delicate local mathematical fitting the whole theory will eventually collapse logically just like a tall dangerous building built on skewed ground. This paper analyzes the differences between mathematics and physics the long term theoretical risks of bypassing contradictions and the boundary between engineering success and physical theoretical success. It proposes that fundamental physics must stick to objective reality and closed causality.
In a deterministic theory, one can deduce the state of the universe at any one time from the dynamical laws that govern its evolution and its state at any other time.In particular, one can deduce from the conditions that obtained at some early boundary condition for the universe, its state at all subsequent times.It is a piece of well-received philosophical common sense that there is no room in a deterministic theory for objective probabilities.Arguments will be given below that this piece of philosophical common sense is mistaken, and that a probability measure over the space of physically possible trajectories is an indispensable component of any theory -deterministic or otherwise -that can be used as a basis for prediction or receive confirmation from the evidence.Phase space is the central representational space in physics.It is the space within which all of the states pertaining to a system are represented, and it encodes all of the general information that we have about those states.To take an obvious example (less obvious examples will be given below) the fact that a pair of quantities are represented by different dimensions in phase space encodes the fact that they represent separate degrees of freedom.Physically possible histories are represented by trajectories through phase space and in a deterministic theory, when dealing with a closed system, there is (no more than) one trajectory through each point.Since the universe as a whole is the only truly closed system, this means there is one trajectory through each point in the phase space of the universe.Probabilities may be invoked in applications of theory, when the state of a system or the values of external variables are not known with full precision, but they are eliminable given complete knowledge.And they don't appear in the statement of the laws.The laws serve simply to identify the physically allowable trajectories.About Newtonian dynamics, Laplace famously said "given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it -an intelligence sufficiently vast to submit these data to analysis -it would embrace in the same formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the lightest atom; for it, nothing would be uncertain and the future, and the past, would be present to its eyes."ii It is a short step from this to the idea that probabilities invoked in classical contexts are subjective rather than objective.If they represent anything, it is facts about our epistemic states, not facts about the world.iii Popper, and Lewis, and other influential figures have endorsed this view, categorically rejecting any role for objective probabilities indeterministic contexts.In Popper's words:
The unmediated, instantaneous long-range correlation demonstrated by quantum entanglement has been repeatedly confirmed by experiments, yet it forms an irreconcilable logical paradox with humanity’s fundamental understanding of cosmic scale, spatial separation, and cognitive limitations. If entanglement is acknowledged to possess infinite, universal action capacity, it would lead to the extreme conclusion that humans could directly reach the boundaries of the universe and connect with the entire cosmos through microscopic quantum phenomena—a notion entirely at odds with the reality that humanity has yet to escape the solar system and remains largely ignorant of the vast majority of the universe. Through rigorous logical deduction, this paper proposes the only self-consistent dual possibilities: first, quantum entanglement may possess undiscovered physical limitations, with its nonlocal properties effective only within a finite scale; second, modern physics may harbor fundamental cognitive biases regarding the nature of space, the meaning of distance, and the reality of separation, suggesting that space is not an objective, independent foundational physical entity. This paper systematically demonstrates the rationality, self-consistency, and revolutionary implications of these two possibilities for physics and cosmology, offering a novel theoretical framework to resolve the underlying conflict between quantum mechanics and cosmology.