Clarifying the conceptual situation of quantum mechanics

in light of the discovery of the mode of action

of the Driving Principle of Universe

Quantum mechanics is characterized by remarkable operational efficiency, but also by persistent conceptual confusions, arising from the fact that its fundamental notions are often used without a clear distinction between what pertains to measurement operations, what belongs to mathematical reasoning, and what concerns the effective ontology of physical reality. The discovery of the mode of action of the driving principle of the universe provides a decisive point of support for clarifying this situation.

This discovery first dissolves a classical but misleading opposition: that between locality and non-locality. When the mode of action of the driving principle is taken into account, it becomes clear that every physical actualization—every real event—involves a local aspect. What is non-local, however, is not the events themselves, but the global relational conditions that govern their possibility and coherence. Non-locality should therefore not be understood as action at a distance, but as the expression of the relational aspect of reality taken as a unity.

This clarification requires a rigorous distinction between what can be reached through a measurement operation and what effectively takes place independently of any measurement. Quantum mechanics precisely describes the operational conditions of actualization, but it does not directly describe the full set of real determinations of the world. Confusing these two levels leads to projecting operational limitations onto ontology itself.

The notion of quantum indeterminacy illustrates this risk. One must specify whether indeterminacy refers to what can be simultaneously attained in a measurement operation, or to the relational structure of reality itself. Without this distinction, conclusions drawn at the operational level are improperly transferred to ontology.

Similarly, certain mathematical reasonings in quantum mechanics may suggest a particular ontology without constituting ontology itself. The formalism describes modalities of the possible and relational structures, but it must not be confused with what actually exists in act.

Finally, this perspective sheds light on the wave–particle duality. Historically formulated in ontological terms, it does not correspond to a real duality. Rather, it concerns two aspects of a single physical reality. Depending on the conditions of manifestation and experimental treatment, one may approach one aspect or the other. The apparent opposition arises only when these modes of access are mistaken for distinct realities.

Thus, the discovery of the mode of action of the driving principle of the universe makes it possible to clarify the conceptual scope of quantum mechanics by distinguishing locality of events from globality of relations, measurement operations from effective reality, and mathematical formalism from ontology. It does not alter the results of the theory, but restores their intelligibility.

Efficient Causality and the Ontological Conditions for a Practical Encounter between Philosophy and Physics

This clarification also makes it possible to better situate the respective roles of philosophy and theoretical physics. Theoretical physics can be defined as the search for coherence in the structure and motion of the physical world, through the determination of quantitative proportions and their inscription within a mathematical formalism, in order to model this behavior in the form of laws and to derive predictions from them. But for these laws to have intelligible scope, their primary concepts must already express a certain coherence of reality. A worldview—explicit or implicit—is therefore always at work upstream of the formalism.

It is at this level that philosophy can play a decisive role. If it succeeds in identifying principles that do not merely have value from the standpoint of being or pure intelligibility, but also possess real efficacious value, then a practical encounter with physics becomes possible. This encounter does not consist in imposing an external framework on physics, but in making explicit certain ontological conditions without which physical concepts lose their causal scope.

Once the mode of action of the driving principle of the universe has been identified—something that can be accomplished both by philosophical reflection and by physical analysis, through complementary approaches—the next step consists in examining its conceptual consequences through thought experiments. It is at this level that a first coherent system of thought can be formulated, making it possible to reconnect with physics in a genuinely practical way. The question is then no longer to produce a competing theory, but to see how certain aspects of existing theoretical physics can be integrated harmoniously: redefinition of concepts, mathematization, quantification, and measurement operations.

Within this framework, the question of efficient causality becomes central. In realist philosophy, efficient causality operates either in relation to matter and form alone, or in relation to another causality that actualizes them. Once the necessity of a non-mechanical cause has been demonstrated, one is led to posit a principle distinct from matter and form alone. The difficult question then inevitably arises concerning its mode of presence within matter.

It is precisely at this level that the notion of the constituent intervenes. Matter and form cannot be separated within it: a constituent is both material cause and formal cause. It is material cause by virtue of its potential aspect—it is here, but it could be elsewhere—and formal cause insofar as the immanent and interrelational action of the driving principle is exercised according to its own determination. This aspect is absolutely necessary, for without it there would no longer be any autonomy of the physical world as a world of real processes.

However, formal cause is not limited to the sole determination of the constituent taken in isolation. It is also necessarily found in the unity of action of the driving principle itself, which establishes, at the scale of the physical world, a constant harmony between all modalities of actualization. It is perhaps at this level that the wave function can be understood as expressing a certain aspect of this global equilibrium: not as an autonomous ontological reality, but as a formal representation of the coherence of possibilities within the unity of reality. One can then understand how the consideration, by the driving principle, of different modalities of actualization does not abolish the freedom of each, but instead integrates it into the coherence of the universe.

This perspective also sheds light on the question of the reduction—or collapse—of the wave function. The unity of the whole is not realized independently of the parts, but as a function of their effective unity. It is at this level that quantum theory could be situated within a genuinely causal framework. However, before one can fully understand the possible role of gravity in this process, it is first necessary to define gravity itself in its relation to mass within such a causal framework. In general relativity, it is asserted that the presence of mass curves space, without specifying how this curvature is to be understood from the standpoint of real action. Motion is described geometrically, but not thought within a fully explicated causal framework.

One may thus conclude that only a truly relational approach to space and motion makes it possible to render physics compatible with the real exercise of causes. Such an approach does not call into question the mathematical effectiveness of existing theories, but restores their ontological intelligibility, by clearly distinguishing what pertains to formal description, to measurement operations, and to the effective action of reality.