We present an ontological framework in which Zeno's dichotomy paradox (motion cannot begin) is resolved by rejecting spatial points as the fundamental ontological category and replacing them with relations between potentials. Motion is not "traversing points" but the change of relation between the potentials of two systems. The formalism draws on relational mechanics (Lynden-Bell, 2016) and relational quantum mechanics (Rovelli; Yang, 2018). The theory is invariant under choice of measurement units, does not require the Dedekind completeness axiom, and is consistent with empirical fact (motion occurs).
We present an ontological framework in which Zeno's dichotomy paradox (motion cannot begin) is resolved by rejecting spatial points as the fundamental ontological category and replacing them with relations between potentials. Motion is not "traversing points" but the change of relation between the potentials of two systems. The formalism draws on relational mechanics (Lynden-Bell, 2016) and relational quantum mechanics (Rovelli; Yang, 2018). The theory is invariant under choice of measurement units, does not require the Dedekind completeness axiom, and is consistent with empirical fact (motion occurs).
During the pre-Socratic period, Parmenides created his radical idea of an eternal, unchanging, and motionless world. This was met with much doubt, contempt, and counterarguments that sought to disprove his statements claiming that the concept of past and future were false, and that both change and movement were impossible. Yet his student, Zeno, came after him and sought to further prove his teacher Parmenides' arguments, creating what are now talked about thousands of years later known as Zeno's paradoxes. This paper will specifically talk about Zeno's dichotomy paradox, claiming that movement cannot exist due to the inherent need to be capable of traversing between a theoretically infinite series of midpoints in order to reach one's destination. The infinite series of points can be overcome with the use of atomist theory to break it down into finite, indivisible points. However, the question then becomes how exactly do we move from one finite point to another? This issue can be addressed using superposition principle, a quantum theory that requires an object to be observed in order for its state to be known, and Planck time, the current smallest measurement of time. Yet even with Planck time being an incredibly small unit of time, our observation is still limited. By understanding movement as a phenomenon that occurs between these lapses of observation, the quantum particles that are resting in superposition are capable of moving from one finite point to another.
Abstract Parmenides’s insinuation of an unchanging universe is assertively supported by Zeno with various logical paradoxes that question the very nature of plurality, space, time, and the reality of apparent motion. The dichotomy is his most famous paradox. To begin a trip, say, from here to the door, a traveler must travel the first half of it, but before she does that she must travel half of the first half, and in fact half of that, ad infinitum. Since there will always exist a smaller first half to be traveled first, Zeno questions whether a traveler can ever even start a trip. Zeno’s analysis is logical; on the other hand, things everywhere appear to be moving. Hence, either Zeno’s reasoning is wrong or appearances are deceptive. Empowered by the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, it will be argued that, at best, the phenomenon of motion is experimentally unverifiable!
The aim of the research is to develop a dialectical relational-event ontology (DREO), that is, a second-order metaphysical framework designed to resolve the fundamental problems of the philosophy of quantum physics: wave-particle dualism and the irreducible pluralism of interpretations. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the following: for the first time, not just another interpretation of quantum mechanics is proposed, but a meta-framework that dialectically sublates the pluralism of interpretations itself and demonstrates their systemic unity; the category of a "relational event" is introduced as a fundamental unit of being, which marks a transition from substantial metaphysics (debates on the individuality of objects) to a metaphysics of becoming; wave-particle dualism is interpreted not as ontological (two entities) and not as epistemological (N. Bohr's complementarity principle), but as a dialectical contradiction sublated in the concept of "relational potentiality" – a structure of possibilities actualized depending on the perspective; the complementarity of wave and particle for the first time receives ontological status – it is a mode of existence of quantum reality itself as a "pulsation" between modes of actualization; a new model of scientific rationality is substantiated – dialectical pluralism – where truth is not a property of an individual proposition but a property of the entire system of perspectives taken in their dialectical unity, which fundamentally distinguishes DREO from contextual quantum realism (CQR), which remains within the static opposition of "rule – application" and epistemological perspectivism. The key results of the study are the following ideas: a relational event (rather than an object or a relation in itself) is recognized as the fundamental unit of being – a discrete act of transition from the potential to the actual in a specific context of interaction; "particle" and "wave" are interpreted as two extreme, mutually exclusive and simultaneously complementary types of actualization of a single structure of potencies in different perspectives; the multiplicity of incompatible but empirically equivalent interpretations of quantum mechanics is shown not as a flaw in the theory, but as a logical consequence of the relational structure of reality, which requires a multitude of complementary perspectives for its adequate expression. Thus, the century-old opposition between objectivism and relativism in the philosophy of science is removed.
Abstract The following paper explores the metaphysical significance of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). For this, I will first outline Rovelli’s philosophical framework, and then offer a reconstruction of Rovelli’s seminal argument in favour of RQM. I will then explore some healthy lines of philosophical work that may be undertaken to strengthen RQM. First, I will frame RQM in the debate between realist and antirealist readings of QM and defend the general claim that RQM is compatible with realism. Then, I discuss the main ontological interpretations of RQM, which I classify as “dispositional”, “transcendental” and “structural”, and argue that all of them remain committed to substantialist assumptions that limit the radicality of Rovelli’s proposal. Finally, I analyse recent developments on RQM’s ontology and suggest that preserving its ontological originality requires an assessment on the concept of “pattern”.
Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) explains the world in terms of an ontology of systems and events, where an event consists of a variable of a system taking a value relative to another system. Two strands of RQM may be distinguished depending on whether events are taken to be absolute or relative. The arguments in this paper apply to both, although I assume that the relativity is not infinitely iterated. I argue that, to solve the problem of measurement, RQM needs to offer a specification of the circumstances in which events occur. Current formulations of RQM claim that events occur whenever interactions occur, without further defining what is meant by “interaction”. I develop plausible ways of understanding the notion of interaction, but I show that they fail to provide a satisfactory specification for the occurrence of events. RQM thus leaves the measurement problem unresolved and, in light of these failed constructive efforts, I conclude that developing a solution consistent with the aims of RQM is a formidable challenge.
This paper proposes a speculative synthesis and research program grounded in relational ontology - the hypothesis that relationships between systems, rather than intrinsic properties of substances, constitute the fundamental structure of reality. Drawing on Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics (1996), Coecke and Abramsky’s categorical quantum mechanics (2004), the Vazza–Feletti cosmic web–neural network isomorphism (2020), Tononi’s integrated information theory (2008), and the Penrose–Hameroff orchestrated objective reduction hypothesis (2014), we argue that converging evidence across quantum physics, astrophysics, neuroscience, complex systems theory, and consciousness studies exhibit structural features naturally expressed in relational terms, motivating a relational research program subject to empirical falsification. The framework generates fourteen falsifiable predictions spanning four domains: (1) cross-scale topological signatures linking cosmic web and neural network architecture via persistent homology, with specified computational tools and parameters; (2) quantum coherence–consciousness correlations testable under graded anesthesia protocols; (3) spontaneous archetypal role differentiation in AI agent networks; and (4) emergent cognitive properties at the AI–human interaction interface. Each prediction specifies test protocols, concrete metrics, expected outcomes under the relational hypothesis, expected outcomes under competing hypotheses, and explicit falsification criteria. We outline a research program for formalizing the framework using categorical quantum mechanics, proposing that the construction of functorial mappings between quantum, neural, linguistic, and cosmic relational categories would constitute evidence for substrate-independent relational organization. The framework’s primary contribution is not certainty but testability: every prediction can fail, and each failure narrows the space of viable ontological models.