The transition from ontic potentiality to actualization of states in quantum mechanical approach to reality: The Proof of a Mathematical Theorem to Support It
Elio Conte, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, Joseph P. Zbilut
It is given a preliminary discussion on the ontic nature of quantum states to be intended as potentialities and on the central role of spin to be considered as the basic essence of quantum mechanical reality. The possible fundamental role of potentialities and of spin is evidenced in the framework of physical as well as of biological reality. After such preliminary deepening, using a quantum like scheme delineated on the basis of an algebraic structure, it is given for the first time mathematical demonstration of the transition from potentiality of states to their actualization as basic mechanism of our reality.
It is given a preliminary discussion on the ontic nature of quantum states to be intended as potentialities and on the central role of spin to be considered as the basic essence of quantum mechanical reality. The possible fundamental role of potentialities and of spin is evidenced in the framework of physical as well as of biological reality. After such preliminary deepening, using a quantum like scheme delineated on the basis of an algebraic structure, it is given for the first time mathematical demonstration of the transition from potentiality of states to their actualization as basic mechanism of our reality.
In the first part of the present paper we give an analysis of the ontic nature of quantum states to be intended as potentialities and of the central role of spin to be considered as the basic essence of quantum mechanical reality: using an algebraic quantum like structure we give mathematical proof on the transition from potentiality to actualization : we recall here what was recently given by us in arXiv quant-ph/0607196. However, as may be expected, it is not so easy to introduce examples containing an adequate description of ontic potentialities through detailed models of systems. The central aim of this paper is to attempt to reach this objective giving direct cases of systems in which ontic potentialities act jointly to actualization. Our aim is to provide evidence for the possible importance of potential states in the sphere of the biological dynamics giving detailed examples of interest for biological studies. We outline the possible implications of potentialities at the level of linear and non linear biological dynamics.
What is the nature of reality? How should be an answer to this question? At this level, we are so deep that all our concepts are obscure. Quantum theory (QT) is at this level. The quest for interpreting it fails because the clarity of our actual fundamental concepts in ordinary language cannot match the precision of the theory's mathematical formalism. The interpretation of quantum mechanics should define and bring clarity to fundamental concepts; not simply rely over them. Quantum theory requires a new worldview, the one that will make it understandable. We discuss on the formulation and interpretation of closed, and final theories, in other words, completely axiomatic theories that define their own conceptual framework, and closed theories that cannot be made simpler. We claim that everything we can properly say about a theory follows from its interpretation, and that interpreting is saying the meaning of each of its mathematical statements. We argue that quantum mechanics is a closed theory; and, therefore, that part of it is part of the final or fundamental theory of physics (FTP). We propose a new entirely axiomatic formulation of part of quantum theory (including all its mathematical framework) in which new powerful and useful elements are added to the existing formalism. Our interpretation is straightforward: it allows us reading or saying the meaning of each of the theory's axiom, theorem or element. We state that the proposed theory is the FTP. Its interpretation may dissolve most of the existing paradoxes around QT. The principle of excluded middle is not valid in general. Both epistemic and ontic elements are present in the theory since it is a theory of knowledge and truth. This and other fundamental concepts are defined by the theory, which can represent both reality and our knowledge about it. Aesthetics is one of its key features.
Abstract. I review some characteristic aspects of quantum reality and make the connection to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's vision and a generally new quantum perspective of biological evolution. The quantum phenomena make it possible to conclude that the basis of the material world is nonmaterial; that the nature of reality is that of an indivisible wholeness; and that elementary particles possess aspects of consciousness in a rudimentary way. The quantum perspective of evolution makes it possible to conclude that the emergence of complex order in the biosphere is not from nothing (ex nihilo) but by the actualization of virtual quantum states—that is, by actualizing empty states which are part of the mathematical structure of material systems, representing a logical order that is not real in a material sense but, predetermined by system conditions, has the potential to become real in quantum jumps. I show how the existence of virtual states makes it possible to suggest that a transcendent reality underlies the visible order of the world and is immanent to it; and constantly new forms evolve from it.
THE THEORY OF POTENTIAL - Philosophical Ontology of Quantum Actualization ASCII Scientific Edition (English) Author: Petr Jupa Date: 2 December 2025 ABSTRACT This text presents the ontological foundation of the Theory of Potential, a philosophical framework that interprets fundamental reality not as a structure of objects in space and time but as a structure of potential quantum configurations. The quantum state does not represent a description of the existing universe but a description of potential reality, from which a single classical sector is actualized. This transition from possibility to act – actualization – is mathematically formalized by Signature Equation 5.0, as presented in the accompanying technical paper (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17784071). The aim of this study is to build an ontological basis explaining the emergence of space, time, physical laws, dark energy, dark matter, consciousness, and the cosmological plurality of sectors through the principle of minimal realization cost. The Theory of Potential provides a unified framework for understanding quantum reality as a process of actualization in the space of possibilities.
The present study is concerned with the problem of realism in quantum mechanics. Contrary to the prevailing view that quantum mechanics forces us to abandon the concept of realism and reality, the author attempts to substantiate another standpoint. Quantum objects indeed exist in a different way from classical bodies. Before the act of measurement begins, one cannot attribute any specific properties to the quantum object observed, as they only occur in the course observation. The concept of observation, however, should not be interpreted as the inclusion of subjective traits in the description of nature. Observation records processes in space and time and establishes the fact of transition from the potential to the reality. The potential is described by a wave function, which in its meaning does not fall in the habitual space and time, whereas the actual is described in terms of a reduction of the wave function, i.e. the transition from a range of possible states to the single one, the observed. Whatever has been observed, in contrast, already belongs to ordinary space and time and can be detected. What follows is that, in quantum mechanics, it is the notion of reality which needs to be reconsidered, not the realism as such rejected. A reconsideration of this sort is conducted here within the framework of a double-modus picture of reality including both potential and actual being, where the quantum level of existence is distinguished from the observed modi of being as described by means of classical concepts. Such a scheme can be described in terms of Aristotelian metaphysics (the fact first pointed out by Heisenberg). The act of transition from potential to actual can be accounted for both in the language of Aristotle’s metaphysics and the language of modern science. In traditional metaphysics it is called the 'principle of individuation', while in modern science it is known as the extended Mach principle. It is argued that the development of these ideas leads to the rejection of Cartesian paradigm in which the existence of a material object always means an existence in space and time.
The idea that the world is made of particles — little discrete, interacting objects that compose the material bodies of everyday experience — is a durable one. Following the advent of quantum theory, the idea was revised but not abandoned. It remains manifest in the explanatory language of physics, chemistry, and molecular biology. Aside from its durability, there is good reason for the scientific realist to embrace the particle interpretation: such a view can account for the prominent epistemic fact that only limited knowledge of a portion of the material universe is needed in order to make reliable predictions about that portion. Thus, particle interpretations can support an abductive argument from the epistemic facts in favor of a realist reading of physical theory. However, any particle interpretation with this property is untenable. The empirical adequacy of modern particle theories requires adoption of a postulate known as permutation invariance (PI) — the claim that interchanging the role of two particles of the same kind in a dynamical state description results in a description of the identical state. It is the central claim of this essay that PI is incompatible with any particle interpretation strong enough to account for the epistemic facts. This incompatibility extends across all physical theories. To frame and motivate the inconsistency argument, I begin by fixing the relevant notion of particle. To single out those accounts of greatest appeal to the realist, I develop the logically weakest particle ontology that entails the epistemic fact that the world is piecewise predictable, an ontology I call ‘minimal atomism’ (MA). The entire series of scientific conceptions of the particle, from Newton’s mechanically interacting corpuscles to the ‘centers of force’ in classical field theories, all comport with MA. As long as PI is left out, even quantum mechanics can be viewed this way. To assess the impact of PI on this picture, I present a framework for rigorously connecting interpretations to physical theories. In particular, I represent MA as a set of formal conditions on the models of physical theories, the mathematical structures taken to represent states of the world. I also formulate PI — originally introduced as a postulate of non-relativistic quantum mechanics — in theory independent terms. With all of these pieces in hand, I am then able to present a proof of the inconsistency of PI and MA. In the second part of the essay, I survey responses to the inconsistency result open to the scientific realist. The two most plausible approaches involve abandoning particles in one way or another. The first alternative interpretation considered takes the property bearing objects of the world to be regions of space rather than particles. In this view, the properties once attributed to particles in quantum states are attributed instead to one or more regions of space. PI no longer obtains in this case, at least not as a statement about the permutation symmetry of property bearers. Rather, the new interpretation naturally imposes an analogous constraint on quantum states. The second major approach to evading the inconsistency result is to dispense with objects altogether. This is the recommendation of so-called ‘Ontic Structural Realism’ (OSR). The central OSR thesis is that structure rather than entities are the basic ontological components of the world. OSR is intended to embrace the ‘miracle’ argument in favor of scientific realism (it would be a miracle if a scientific theory were predictively successful unless it were also approximately true with regard to its description of reality) while avoiding the pessimistic meta-induction (most predictively successful theories along with their associated ontologies have been overturned, so we should expect the same of our current theories). I demonstrate that one principal motivation for OSR based on the under-determination of interpretations in QM is actually dissolved by the incompatibility result. At the same time, I suggest reasons to think that OSR fares no better with respect to the pessimistic meta-induction than traditional realism does. Thus, while PI and MA may be incompatible, object ontologies remain the best option for the realist.