Distributed Presence III: Ontological Unity in Physics Emergent Spacetime, Dynamics, and the Unification of Forces
Description
This paper develops the Distributed Presence (DP) framework as a conceptual programme for analysing the structural underpinnings of fundamental physics. The framework begins from a single primitive notion—presence—understood as a non‑negative quantity distributed across possible configurations and characterized by scalar intensity and internal orientation. Rather than proposing an alternative physical theory, the aim is to examine how this primitive may offer a unified interpretative basis for categories ordinarily regarded as fundamental, such as space, time, matter, and interaction.
The analysis is organised around a three‑level ontological hierarchy. At the structural level (L1), reality is described in terms of discrete relational configurations that do not presuppose a background spacetime or an independent temporal parameter. At the level of actualization (L2), these configurations are stochastically realized in sequence, and this ordering provides a minimal sense of temporality. At the emergent level (L3), continuous geometry, smooth temporal evolution, and effective dynamical laws arise as large‑scale approximations to the underlying discrete processes.
Within this framework, the paper outlines structural accounts of spatial, temporal, and dynamical emergence. Spatial structure is represented through networks of relational proximities; temporal order and motion arise from repeated re‑actualizations of presence; and mass‑like or field‑like behaviour is associated with variations in intensity across configurations. Internal orientations are tentatively organised through the hierarchy of normed division algebras R⊂C⊂H⊂O, which serve as abstract resources for distinguishing qualitative sectors without implying correspondence to particular physical interactions.
A possible reinterpretation of acceleration is also outlined. Rather than treating forces as external agents acting on objects, the framework describes them as statistical biases in the process of re‑actualization. When the density of accessible configurations in state space varies across regions, the probabilities governing subsequent actualizations become biased toward denser regions. Acceleration associated with fields can thus be interpreted as the cumulative result of many such biased stochastic transitions in a non‑uniform state space.
The objective is conceptual clarification rather than empirical reformulation. The DP framework is offered as a contribution to philosophical discussions on emergent spacetime, structural ontology, and the interpretation of fundamental physics.
Files
DP III.pdf
Files
(1.5 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:e705bdddf8cce04fd6c08df24f53be38
|
1.5 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Related works
- Is part of
- Preprint: 10.5281/zenodo.18712462 (DOI)
- Journal: 10.5281/zenodo.18359187 (DOI)
References
- [1] Nasiri Vatan, S. (2026). "Distributed Presence: A Structural-Ontological Framework for Quantum Mechanics," International Journal of Quantum Foundations, vol. 12. https://ijqf.org/archives/8001
- [2] Nasiri Vatan, S. (2026). "Distributed Presence II: Distributed Presence II: From Ontology to Formalism Minterms, Quantum Numbers and Applications". https://zenodo.org/records/19499771
- [3] Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., & Zanghì, N. (2013). Quantum Physics without Quantum Philosophy. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30690-7
- [4] Norsen, T. (2017). Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: An Exploration of the Physical Meaning of Quantum Theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65867-4
- [5] Wallace, D. (2012). The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546961.001.0001
- [6] Baez, J. C. (2012). Divisions, Jordan algebras and quantum theory. Foundations of Physics, 42(7), 819–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-011-9566-z
- [7] Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (10th anniversary ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667
- [8] Healey, R. (2012). Quantum theory: A pragmatist approach. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63(4), 729–771. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axr054
- [9] Baez, J. C., & Huerta, J. (2011). The algebra of grand unified theories. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 47(3), 483–552. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0273-0979-10-01294-2
- [10] Landsman, N. P. (2017). Foundations of Quantum Theory: From Classical Concepts to Operator Algebras. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51777-3
- [11] Amelino-Camelia, G. (2013). Quantum-spacetime phenomenology. Living Reviews in Relativity, 16, 5. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2013-5
- [12] Baez, J. C., & Huerta, J. (2011). Division algebras and supersymmetry I. Superstrings, Geometry, Topology, and C-Algebras*, 25, 65–80. (Preprint version in arXiv:0909.0551). https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.0551