Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Is Our Physics The Only Reality

Bertrand Wong

Published Feb 1, 2012• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

A number of points are brought up below for pondering and possible discussion. We should not regard our physics as the one and only reality. What is described below may seem like science fiction, but should not be brushed off as inconsequential.

Related papers

Are We Real? And Other Questions of Physics

Andrea Gawrylewski

Scientific American•Dec 1, 2020•0 citations

Relationalism versus realism: a dilemma for relational quantum mechanics

Jacobs, Caspar, Read, James

Are absolute representations of reality---i.e., representations of reality from no particular point view---possible? Moore (1997) has offered abstract arguments for the following answer to this question: 'yes, invariably'. But there are questions regarding whether (and how) this conclusion can be compatible with modern physics, where absolute representations often seem hard to come by. These questions were taken up by Jacobs & Read (2025) in the context of classical spacetime physics; here, we turn our attention to quantum mechanics. In particular, when the arguments of Moore (1997) are brought into contact with the 'relational quantum mechanics' of Rovelli (1996) and collaborators, one finds that the latter is unstable: either it is not relational view, or it is not a realist view.

•Aug 6, 2025•0 citations

An Axiomatization of Realities

Ashwin Vaidya, Bong Jae Chung

Perhaps one of the most intriguing questions in philosophy concerns the true nature of external reality. In this paper, we discuss some of the theories that have been put forth regarding the nature of reality and of our perceived universe. We develop an abstract mathematical model, whereby, several theories that have been proposed so, ranging from modern physics to ancient Indian philosophy can be brought under a common umbrella. We also discuss a specific case, which emerges from our more general model, which has an interesting consequence upon the way we view our world.

arXiv:math/0408313•Aug 23, 2004•0 citations

Reality in Physics

W. F. G. Swann

Science•Jan 29, 1932•0 citations

Physics and the Nature of Reality

Angelo Bassi, Sheldon Goldstein, Roderich Tumulka +1 more

Fundamental theories of physics•Jan 1, 2024•4 citations

An Examination Of The Philosophical Foundations Of Quantum Theory

Cranston, Julius Byron, Jr.

Beginning in 1900 with 1-iax Planck's hypothesis of quanta, physics has been embarked on a course which has raised serious questions about the true nature of physical reality, about the foundational assumptions and structures of science, and about the relationships between physical reality and physical theory. In particular, attempts to give a physical interpretation to quantum theory seem to result in "pictures" of nature which are paradoxical. A subatomic entity is described by the theory as exhibiting the properties and behavior of both particle-like phenomena and wave­like phenomena. Since it seems unreasonable that a single entity could be both a point-like mass and a wave spread out through a region of space, quantum theory would seem to be less than satisfactory or less than complete at the interpretational level. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the underlying causes of this paradox. The dissertation proceeds by reviewing the development of quantum theory and the emergence of the paradox. Next, the prob­lem of physical interpretation is examined and several of the more significant existing interpretations are discussed and analyzed. Finally, the foundations of science and the general structure of scientific theory are examined in a search for the origins of the paradox. As a result of these investigations and analyses, it is con­cluded that the paradoxical nature of the physical interpretation of quantum theory is the consequence of certain paradigms and preconceptualizations about physical reality which have been incorporated into the theory at the foundational level. These fundamental assU14p­tions produce, within quantum theory, a forced marriage of the plenum and atomic views of physical reality. They also produce an ambiguity with respect to the nature of causality which is charaeteristic of the theory. These problems are reflected in the mathematical formalisms and physical concepts of the theory as well as in its meta­physical foundations. Lastly, methods of resoling the paradox are discussed. It is argued that a successful solution is possible, but that it would involve the creation of a new metaphor-an extension of the present language--which would lead science to a deeper, subquantum level in terms of which the present paradox would vanish.

•Dec 12, 1975•0 citations
Are absolute representations of reality---i.e., representations of reality from no particular point view---possible? Moore (1997) has offered abstract arguments for the following answer to this question: 'yes, invariably'. But there are questions regarding whether (and how) this conclusion can be compatible with modern physics, where absolute representations often seem hard to come by. These questions were taken up by Jacobs & Read (2025) in the context of classical spacetime physics; here, we turn our attention to quantum mechanics. In particular, when the arguments of Moore (1997) are brought into contact with the 'relational quantum mechanics' of Rovelli (1996) and collaborators, one finds that the latter is unstable: either it is not relational view, or it is not a realist view.
Perhaps one of the most intriguing questions in philosophy concerns the true nature of external reality. In this paper, we discuss some of the theories that have been put forth regarding the nature of reality and of our perceived universe. We develop an abstract mathematical model, whereby, several theories that have been proposed so, ranging from modern physics to ancient Indian philosophy can be brought under a common umbrella. We also discuss a specific case, which emerges from our more general model, which has an interesting consequence upon the way we view our world.
Beginning in 1900 with 1-iax Planck's hypothesis of quanta, physics has been embarked on a course which has raised serious questions about the true nature of physical reality, about the foundational assumptions and structures of science, and about the relationships between physical reality and physical theory. In particular, attempts to give a physical interpretation to quantum theory seem to result in "pictures" of nature which are paradoxical. A subatomic entity is described by the theory as exhibiting the properties and behavior of both particle-like phenomena and wave­like phenomena. Since it seems unreasonable that a single entity could be both a point-like mass and a wave spread out through a region of space, quantum theory would seem to be less than satisfactory or less than complete at the interpretational level. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the underlying causes of this paradox. The dissertation proceeds by reviewing the development of quantum theory and the emergence of the paradox. Next, the prob­lem of physical interpretation is examined and several of the more significant existing interpretations are discussed and analyzed. Finally, the foundations of science and the general structure of scientific theory are examined in a search for the origins of the paradox. As a result of these investigations and analyses, it is con­cluded that the paradoxical nature of the physical interpretation of quantum theory is the consequence of certain paradigms and preconceptualizations about physical reality which have been incorporated into the theory at the foundational level. These fundamental assU14p­tions produce, within quantum theory, a forced marriage of the plenum and atomic views of physical reality. They also produce an ambiguity with respect to the nature of causality which is charaeteristic of the theory. These problems are reflected in the mathematical formalisms and physical concepts of the theory as well as in its meta­physical foundations. Lastly, methods of resoling the paradox are discussed. It is argued that a successful solution is possible, but that it would involve the creation of a new metaphor-an extension of the present language--which would lead science to a deeper, subquantum level in terms of which the present paradox would vanish.