Published January 6, 2026 | Version v1

Ontology, Epistemology, and Quantum Reality

Authors/Creators

Description

This essay argues that many interpretative paradoxes in quantum mechanics arise from a systematic confusion between regimes of description and regimes of existence. It therefore proposes an operative distinction between the real (material dynamics), the concrete (the mark as a stabilising inscription), and theory (the symbolic organisation of prediction). On this basis, degeneracy is reinterpreted as a limit of individuation defined by the experimental cut: where there is no difference at the level of the mark, formal multiplicity amounts to an excess of description rather than to ontological plurality. Likewise, the density matrix is treated as an epistemic operator appropriate to incomplete knowledge and variability of preparation, thereby avoiding the reification of “mixture” into an entity. Interference and superposition are traced back to the manner in which the calculus organises possibilities prior to their separation by a mark. Entanglement is analysed as epistemic correlation inherited in the absence of present interaction, and is distinguished from dynamical non-separability except in cases of effective coupling. In the context of EPR/Bell, it is argued that the update of the predictive regime following a local mark does not constitute a physical process in the distant system; Bell inequalities constrain certain classical grammars of factorisation without determining a positive ontology of superluminal influences. The paper concludes with a critical comparison of consistent histories, informational approaches, and collapse models in terms of their respective ontological costs.

Files

Ontology, Epistemology, and Quantum Reality.pdf

Files (417.6 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:416630052c74d0cae96c0a874122e6de
417.6 kB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • Aspect, Alain, Jean Dalibard, and Gérard Roger. 1982. "Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers." Physical Review Letters 49 (25): 1804–1807. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804.
  • Bassi, Angelo, and GianCarlo Ghirardi. 2003. "Dynamical Reduction Models." Physics Reports 379 (5–6): 257–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00103-0.
  • Bell, John S. 1964. "On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Paradox." Physics Physique Fizika 1 (3): 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195.
  • Clauser, John F., Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard A. Holt. 1969. "Proposed Ex-periment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories." Physical Review Letters 23 (15): 880–884. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880.
  • Feynman, Richard P., Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands. 1965. The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Vol. III: Quantum Mechanics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Gell-Mann, Murray, and James B. Hartle. 1993. "Classical Equations for Quantum Systems." Physical Review D 47 (8): 3345–3382. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.47.3345.
  • Ghirardi, GianCarlo, Alberto Rimini, and Tullio Weber. 1986. "Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems." Physical Review D 34 (2): 470–491. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.34.470.
  • Griffiths, Robert B. 1984. "Consistent Histories and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics." Journal of Statistical Physics 36 (1–2): 219–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01015734.
  • Jaynes, E. T. 2003. Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Messiah, Albert. 1961. Quantum Mechanics. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Com-pany.
  • Nielsen, Michael A., and Isaac L. Chuang. 2010. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Omnès, Roland. 1992. "Consistent Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics." Reviews of Modern Physics 64 (2): 339–382. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.64.339.
  • Pearle, Philip. 1989. "Combining Stochastic Dynamical State-Vector Reduction with Spontaneous Localization." Physical Review A 39 (5): 2277–2289. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.39.2277.
  • Sakurai, J. J., and Jim Napolitano. 2017. Modern Quantum Mechanics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.
  • von Neumann, John. 1932. Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Julius Springer.