Localized Actualization Without Global Structures

Phenomenological Absolutism as an Ontological Grounding for Zeilinger’s Quantum Information Realism

Author: Patrick David Aoun

Date: July 26, 2026

Abstract

The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded to Alain Aspect, John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger, confirmed the violation of Bell inequalities under stringent experimental conditions, thereby ruling out local hidden-variable theories. Building on decades of foundational work, Zeilinger has advocated an information-theoretic interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which an elementary system carries one bit of information and the distinction between reality and information becomes difficult to maintain. Yet most interpretations of these results continue—explicitly or implicitly—to rely on global ontological structures such as persisting wavefunctions, block-universe manifolds, or effective global states.

This paper argues that any ontological commitment to such global structures violates the requirements of austere physical realism. Positing a global structure requires an acknowledgment of that structure, which is itself a localized quantum field actualization. Accounting for this acknowledgment triggers an infinite ontological regress, undermining explanatory closure and ontological parsimony. Drawing on the meta-framework of Mutual Exclusivity (ME) and the principle of Phenomenological Absolutism (PA)—jointly referred to as PA/ME—we propose that reality consists solely of absolute, mutually exclusive moments of is-ness, each identical with a localized quantum field actualization. Within this ontology, Zeilinger’s informational view receives a coherent ontological grounding rather than remaining merely operational or instrumental.

We reframe entanglement correlations, contextuality, measurement, and randomness as internal configurational regularities acknowledged as such within the relevant is-nesses, without positing trans-is-ness connections or pre-existing global properties. This approach dissolves longstanding paradoxes while preserving the full empirical content and technological success of quantum information science. We conclude that PA/ME offers a parsimonious ontological foundation fully consistent with both the experimental results of 2022 and Zeilinger’s emphasis on information as fundamental.

Keywords: quantum information, Bell inequalities, Zeilinger, physical realism, ontological parsimony, phenomenological absolutism, mutual exclusivity, localized actualization, contextuality

I. Introduction

The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded to Alain Aspect, John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger, marked a decisive experimental confirmation of quantum mechanics’ departure from classical intuitions. Through a series of loophole-free Bell tests and related experiments, these researchers demonstrated violations of Bell inequalities under conditions that closed major experimental loopholes, thereby ruling out local hidden-variable theories as viable explanations for observed quantum correlations. These results not only solidify the empirical foundation of quantum theory but also intensify longstanding questions about the nature of reality at the fundamental level.

For decades, Anton Zeilinger has championed an information-theoretic perspective on quantum mechanics. Central to his view is the idea that an elementary quantum system carries one bit of information and that the very distinction between “reality” and “our information about reality” becomes difficult, if not impossible, to maintain in a fundamental way. This perspective aligns with the contextuality and randomness that emerge from quantum measurements and has profound implications for how we understand information, observation, and the structure of physical law. Yet, despite the power of this informational approach, most interpretations—whether realist, operationalist, or instrumentalist—continue to rely, explicitly or implicitly, on global ontological structures such as persisting wavefunctions, block-universe manifolds, or effective global states that span multiple measurement events.

In this paper, we argue that any ontological commitment to such global structures is incompatible with a sufficiently austere interpretation of physical realism. Specifically, positing a global structure requires an acknowledgment of that structure, which must itself be realized as a localized quantum field actualization. Accounting for this acknowledgment then demands yet another vantage point or actualization, generating an infinite ontological regress. Such a regress undermines both explanatory closure and ontological parsimony, violating the core commitments of physical realism. To avoid this regress, we propose a framework grounded in Phenomenological Absolutism (PA) and Mutual Exclusivity (ME). According to this framework, reality consists solely of absolute, mutually exclusive moments of is-ness, each identical with a localized quantum field actualization. There is no persisting global substrate or trans-is-ness ontology.

Within this ontology, we provide a coherent ontological grounding for Zeilinger’s informational insights and the experimental results of 2022. Rather than treating correlations, contextuality, and information as features of an underlying global reality, we reframe them as internal configurational regularities acknowledged as such within successive absolute is-nesses. This approach dissolves longstanding metaphysical paradoxes while fully preserving the empirical and technological success of quantum information science. The paper proceeds as follows. Section II reviews Zeilinger’s program and the key experimental findings. Section III develops the regress argument against global structures. Section IV presents the PA/ME framework. Section V offers a detailed ontological reframing of quantum information and Bell experiments. Section VI discusses the advantages of this approach, while Section VII addresses potential objections. We conclude in Section VIII with reflections on the broader implications for quantum foundations and the philosophy of physics.

II. Zeilinger’s Program and the 2022 Experiments: Achievements and Ontological Ambiguities

The experimental confirmation of quantum mechanics’ non-classical features reached a milestone with the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics. Alain Aspect, John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger were recognized for their groundbreaking experiments demonstrating violations of Bell inequalities. These tests, conducted under increasingly rigorous conditions, closed major loopholes related to locality, detection efficiency, and freedom of choice. In particular, the loophole-free Bell tests and subsequent cosmic Bell experiments—where measurement settings were chosen using distant astronomical sources—provided compelling evidence that no local hidden-variable theory can reproduce the observed quantum correlations.

Anton Zeilinger’s contributions extend beyond these specific experiments. Over several decades, he has developed and advocated an information-theoretic interpretation of quantum mechanics. At its core is the principle that an elementary quantum system represents one bit of information. This view emphasizes that quantum measurements do not merely reveal pre-existing properties but bring definite outcomes into being within a given context. Zeilinger has repeatedly stressed the difficulty of maintaining a sharp distinction between “reality” and “information about reality,” suggesting that information itself may be a fundamental constituent of the physical world. His work on entanglement swapping, quantum teleportation, and the foundational role of information has influenced both experimental practice and theoretical discourse in quantum information science.

Despite these achievements, a persistent ontological ambiguity remains in how these results are interpreted. Most accounts—whether they lean toward realist, operationalist, or instrumentalist positions—continue to rely, at least implicitly, on global ontological structures. These include persisting wavefunctions that evolve unitarily across spacetime, block-universe manifolds in which all events coexist, or effective global states that underwrite correlations between space-like separated measurements. Even interpretations that emphasize information often retain such structures in the background to explain the reproducibility and law-like character of quantum predictions.

This reliance on global structures creates a tension with Zeilinger’s own emphasis on information and contextuality. If information is truly fundamental, why should we assume the existence of a global arena in which that information is encoded or transmitted? The experimental success of quantum mechanics does not, by itself, compel ontological commitment to these global entities. In the following sections, we argue that such commitment is not only unnecessary but actively incompatible with austere physical realism. By developing the regress argument and introducing the framework of Phenomenological Absolutism and Mutual Exclusivity, we provide an alternative ontological foundation that honors the experimental results while eliminating the need for global substrates.

III. The Regress Problem: Why Global Structures Violate Austere Physical Realism

Austere physical realism holds that physics exhausts ontology: there are no non-physical entities or ontologically superfluous structures beyond what is required by physical description. When pursued with sufficient rigor, this commitment reveals a fundamental difficulty with any ontological positing of global structures—whether persisting wavefunctions, block-universe manifolds, effective global states, or God’s-eye perspectives from which multiple events can be surveyed simultaneously.

Consider what is involved in positing such a structure. To treat a global wavefunction or a trans-is-ness manifold as ontologically real requires an acknowledgment of that structure as part of reality. Yet this acknowledgment is itself a localized quantum field actualization—an absolute is-ness. To account for the validity or ontological status of this acknowledgment then requires yet another vantage point or actualization from which the previous one can be assessed. This process repeats indefinitely, generating an infinite ontological regress.

Such a regress is incompatible with physicalism’s demands for explanatory closure and ontological parsimony. Physical explanations must ultimately terminate in physical entities and processes; an infinite chain of higher-order acknowledgments cannot be accommodated without expanding ontology indefinitely. Moreover, the proliferation of ever-higher structures violates parsimony: we introduce additional ontological layers solely to justify the previous ones, with no independent physical motivation. Even appeals to “effective” or “instrumental” use of global structures fail to escape the problem. If the global structure is employed to explain or predict correlations across measurements, its use still involves acknowledgment within a localized actualization. Treating it as merely calculational while relying on it ontologically simply defers the regress.

This argument applies with equal force to interpretations of Bell experiments and Zeilinger’s information-theoretic approach. Any attempt to underwrite strong quantum correlations with a persisting entangled state or a global Hilbert-space structure triggers the same regress. The only position that halts the regress is one that refuses ontological commitment to global structures altogether. In the next section, we present Phenomenological Absolutism and Mutual Exclusivity as precisely such a position: reality consists solely of absolute, mutually exclusive localized is-nesses, each identical with a quantum field actualization. This framework stops the regress at the level of the is-ness itself and thereby satisfies the strictest demands of austere physical realism.

IV. Phenomenological Absolutism and Mutual Exclusivity: The Framework

To provide a coherent ontological grounding for Zeilinger’s program without falling into the regress identified above, we turn to the framework of Phenomenological Absolutism (PA) and Mutual Exclusivity (ME). At its core, the principle of Phenomenological Absolutism asserts that reality consists solely of absolute, self-contained moments of is-ness. Each is-ness is not a fragment or appearance of a larger reality but the entirety of existence in that moment. It is identical with a localized quantum field actualization and stands as the sole ontic existent for that realization. There is nothing ontologically outside, beneath, or across it.

Mutual Exclusivity complements this principle by establishing that is-nesses are strictly mutually exclusive. No two is-nesses share ontological being; there is no persisting global substrate, manifold, or trans-is-ness continuity that connects them. What appears as temporal succession, causality, or spatial relation is an internal acknowledgment occurring within a given is-ness, not an ontological fact spanning multiple is-nesses. All conceptual distinctions—including those between “phenomenological” and “ontological,” or between “information” and “reality”—arise and function strictly as acknowledgments within absolute is-nesses.

This framework is self-effacing in its meta-character. Its own concepts and descriptions are tools acknowledged within is-nesses rather than trans-is-ness ontological claims. By refusing to posit any global structure, PA/ME halts the infinite regress that plagues positions relying on persisting wavefunctions, block universes, or effective global states. It thereby satisfies the demands of austere physical realism for explanatory closure and ontological parsimony. Epistemologically, all knowledge and conceptualization are confined to the domain of the is-ness in which they occur. There is no external vantage point from which multiple is-nesses can be surveyed or related ontologically.

In the following section, we apply this framework to reframe the key elements of quantum information science and the Bell experiments. By treating correlations, contextuality, and information as internal configurational regularities acknowledged as such within absolute is-nesses, we aim to provide an ontological foundation that honors Zeilinger’s insights while eliminating the need for global ontological scaffolding.

V. Ontological Reframing of Quantum Information and Bell Experiments

With the PA/ME framework in place, we can now offer a detailed ontological reframing of Zeilinger’s information-theoretic approach and the experimental results of 2022. This reframing preserves all empirical content while grounding it in absolute localized is-nesses rather than global structures.

First, consider Zeilinger’s principle that an elementary quantum system carries one bit of information. Within PA/ME, this information content is not a property of an underlying global state but is acknowledged as such within the internal configurational structure of the absolute is-ness. There is no deeper reality that the information is about; the acknowledgment itself constitutes the ontic event.

Contextuality and measurement receive a similar treatment. Properties do not pre-exist in a global arena and are then revealed or brought into being by measurement. Instead, they arise as configurational features acknowledged as such within the measurement is-ness itself. Measurement is not an update or collapse of a global wavefunction but the actualization of a new exclusive is-ness. This dissolves the traditional measurement problem: there is no global superposition requiring collapse because there is no global ontology in the first place.

Entanglement and Bell correlations are reframed as internal configurational regularities acknowledged as such within the relevant is-nesses. When particles are prepared in an entangled state, that preparation actualizes a specific configurational structure. Subsequent measurements on separated particles actualize new is-nesses whose internal configurations reflect the original preparation through law-like phenomenological regularities. No persisting entangled state or non-local influence across a manifold is required. The strong correlations observed in Bell tests are therefore expected features of how certain is-nesses are configured, not evidence of non-locality in a shared ontological arena.

To understand how a Bell inequality violation is accommodated without a global substrate, consider the evaluation of the statistical correlations themselves. The apparent non-locality traditionally attributed to these violations assumes that an ontological connection must span the spatial distance between separated measurement events. Under the PA/ME framework, however, the statistical violation is calculated and acknowledged entirely as a coherent record within a single, subsequent is-ness—specifically, the localized actualization wherein the data from both wings are formally compared. The “spooky action” never traverses a physical distance because the correlation does not ontologically exist across a spatial manifold; rather, it exists exclusively as the internal phenomenological syntax—the mathematical regularity acknowledged as such—within the final absolute is-ness that registers the aggregated results.

The apparent non-locality of quantum mechanics emerges as an artifact of assuming a global ontological arena. Once that assumption is dropped, the correlations do not require non-local causation in the classical sense. Similarly, fundamental randomness reflects the configurational openness acknowledged as such within each relevant absolute is-ness, rather than ignorance of hidden variables within a global substrate.

Finally, the quantum formalism itself—including density operators, Bell inequalities, and entanglement witnesses—functions as a highly effective set of phenomenological descriptors. These mathematical tools arise within is-nesses capable of acknowledging complex configurational patterns. Their predictive success does not entail ontological commitment to the global structures they employ mathematically. Instead, they serve as powerful internal models for navigating the openness and correlations that characterize quantum-relevant is-nesses.

This reframing thus provides a coherent ontological home for Zeilinger’s program without the regress-inducing commitment to global structures.

VI. Advantages of the PA/ME Reframing

The PA/ME framework offers several significant advantages as an ontological grounding for Zeilinger’s program and the 2022 experimental results. First and foremost, it achieves genuine ontological parsimony by refusing commitment to global structures. By halting the infinite regress at the level of absolute localized is-nesses, the framework satisfies the strictest demands of austere physical realism for explanatory closure. No additional ontological layers are introduced to account for acknowledgments; the is-ness itself serves as the sole ontic existent.

Second, this approach cleanly dissolves longstanding metaphysical paradoxes. The measurement problem disappears because there is no global superposition or wavefunction requiring collapse. The tension between reality and information is resolved because information is acknowledged as such as and within the configurational structure of the is-ness itself. Apparent non-locality no longer requires spooky action at a distance, as there is no shared ontological arena across which such action would need to occur.

Third, the framework fully preserves the empirical and technological success of quantum information science. All experimental predictions, including those of Bell tests and entanglement-based protocols, remain intact. The quantum formalism continues to function as a highly effective phenomenological tool for navigating configurational patterns. What changes is not the predictive power but the ontological interpretation of why that power exists.

Fourth, PA/ME aligns naturally with relativistic locality in its operational sense. No usable signaling is possible because correlations are acknowledged within localized is-nesses rather than transmitted across a global manifold. This maintains consistency with special relativity while accommodating the strong correlations observed in experiments.

Finally, by providing an ontological grounding for Zeilinger’s emphasis on information and contextuality, the framework advances the informational perspective beyond its primarily operational character. It offers a unified, minimalist ontology that integrates quantum information science with austere physical realism without sacrificing explanatory depth or empirical fidelity.

VII. Objections and Responses

Several potential objections to the PA/ME reframing merit consideration. We address the most significant ones here.

First, it might be objected that the framework is too radical and undermines scientific realism by treating the quantum formalism as a set of phenomenological descriptors rather than a description of underlying global reality. In response, we note that the framework preserves all operational and predictive success of quantum mechanics. Scientific realism is not compromised but refined: the success of the formalism reflects its effectiveness in tracking configurational patterns within is-nesses. Rejecting global ontological commitment does not diminish empirical fidelity; it increases ontological parsimony.

Second, critics may argue that the framework cannot adequately account for the reproducibility and law-like character of quantum correlations across successive measurements. If each is-ness is absolute and mutually exclusive, how do strong, stable correlations persist? The response is that reproducibility is itself an internal configurational regularity acknowledged as such within the relevant is-nesses. The robustness of these patterns arises from the law-like phenomenological regularities (non-temporal constraints) that appear to characterize certain classes of is-nesses—or is-ness domains. No trans-is-ness ontological carrier is required.

Third, some may claim that the self-effacing character of the framework renders it self-refuting or too modest to be useful. If even its own concepts are merely acknowledged within is-nesses, how can it claim to resolve paradoxes or ground Zeilinger’s program? This objection misunderstands the meta-framework nature of ME. The framework functions as an orienting tool that reveals the structural exclusivity and absoluteness of each is-ness (or localized quantum field actualization). Its self-effacing quality is required by consistency with the absoluteness of the is-ness; it does not undermine its capacity to dissolve paradoxes generated by globalist assumptions.

Fourth, it could be objected that the framework offers no new empirical predictions and is therefore underdetermined or untestable. We acknowledge that PA/ME is primarily an ontological clarification rather than a source of novel predictions within the current experimental paradigm. Its value lies in providing a coherent, regress-free foundation that aligns with austere physical realism while fully accommodating existing data. Future work may identify subtle empirical signatures in regimes where globalist and local-actualization ontologies diverge (for example, in quantum-gravity or consciousness-related contexts), but the current strength of the framework is its parsimony and paradox-dissolving power.

Fifth, a skeptic might argue that relying on “configurational regularities” to explain repeatable quantum experiments sounds functionally identical to superdeterminism—a pre-orchestrated harmony of events masquerading as local actualizations.

This objection smuggles in the very global substrate the PA/ME framework explicitly rejects. Superdeterminism fundamentally entails an ontological causal chain and an independent background manifold across which that chain unfolds. The PA/ME framework posits no such trans-is-ness chain; the sole ontic existent is the absolute phenomenology of the moment. The framework does not rely on configurational regularities per se. Instead, it reframes such regularities strictly as the acknowledgment thereof, which is identical with a localized quantum-field configuration realizing the phenomenology of that acknowledgment.

When the critic asks, “How is such coordination possible without an underlying causal substrate?”, that question is framed by PA/ME as simply another absolute, exclusive is-ness. The critic cannot deny that the acknowledgment of their own question must, under strict physical realism, be a localized physical instantiation at the fundamental level of reality. The demand for a trans-is-ness “why” is thus consistently dissolved into the absolute, localized “what is.”

These responses demonstrate that the apparent limitations of PA/ME are largely artifacts of evaluating it from within globalist assumptions that the framework itself rejects.

VIII. Conclusion

The experimental achievements recognized by the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, together with Anton Zeilinger’s information-theoretic insights, have profoundly challenged classical conceptions of reality. However, most interpretations continue to labor under the weight of global ontological structures that generate infinite regress and violate the principles of austere physical realism. By refusing ontological commitment to such structures, the framework of Phenomenological Absolutism and Mutual Exclusivity offers a coherent alternative.

We have argued that positing any global structure requires an acknowledgment that is itself a localized quantum field actualization, triggering an infinite regress incompatible with explanatory closure and ontological parsimony. PA/ME halts this regress at the level of absolute, mutually exclusive is-nesses, each the sole ontic existent in its moment. Within this ontology, Zeilinger’s emphasis on information, contextuality, and the blurring of reality and information finds a natural ontological grounding. Entanglement correlations, measurement outcomes, and randomness are reframed as internal configurational regularities acknowledged as such within successive is-nesses, without need for persisting global states or non-local influences across manifolds.

This reframing preserves the full empirical and technological success of quantum information science while providing a minimalist, regress-free foundation consistent with austere physical realism. It dissolves longstanding paradoxes and offers a unified perspective that integrates quantum foundations with the absoluteness of localized actualization. Ultimately, by returning ontology to the absolute is-ness and dissolving the ontic-epistemic structural divide, PA/ME reframes quantum phenomena as the natural expression of reality’s localized, exclusive, and information-rich character—rather than mysteries requiring global scaffolding. Modern physics has already successfully mapped a reality devoid of a global substrate; the mathematics of local actualization function perfectly without one. The final step in resolving the quantum foundational crisis is therefore not the discovery of a new physical mechanism, but the metaphysical courage to accept the formal structure of our best physics at face value.

References

Aoun, P. D. (2025). Mutual exclusivity: A new compass for reality. Independently published. https://www.mutual-exclusivity.com

Aoun, P. D. (2026). Phenomenological absolutism as the endpoint of austere physical realism. PhilArchive. https://philarchive.org/rec/AOUPAA

Aspect, A., Grangier, P., & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A new violation of Bell’s inequalities. Physical Review Letters, 49(2), 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.91

Clauser, J. F., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., & Holt, R. A. (1969). Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Physical Review Letters, 23(15), 880–884. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880

Nobel Prize Committee. (2022). Scientific background on the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022: For experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science. Nobel Foundation. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/advanced-information/

Rovelli, C. (2018). The order of time. Riverhead Books.

Zeilinger, A. (1999). A foundational principle for quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 29(4), 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018820410908

Zeilinger, A. (2010). Dance of the photons: From Einstein to quantum teleportation. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Zeilinger, A. (various works). Key contributions include foundational papers on quantum teleportation, entanglement swapping, and cosmic Bell tests. For comprehensive overviews, see the 2022 Nobel scientific background document cited above.