Quantum Mechanics Lens

For readers with quantum mechanics training seeking an interpretive entry point into Cohesion Dynamics.

This entry route provides an interpretive lens for understanding how quantum mechanical structure is addressed within Cohesion Dynamics. It does not introduce new results, nor does it replace the formal B-series papers. Instead, it orients quantum-trained readers to where and how quantum phenomena appear in the CD framework.

Overview

Quantum mechanics describes the world using:

superposition of alternatives,
interference between histories,
probabilistic outcomes,
and sudden decoherence upon measurement.

These features are extraordinarily successful, yet conceptually puzzling. They appear to require:

indeterminate states,
observer-dependent collapse,
and nonlocal correlations that resist classical explanation.

Cohesion Dynamics does not deny these observations. Instead, it asks a different question:

What kind of substrate structure could give rise to quantum mechanics as a stable and effective calculus?

This page maps quantum concepts onto CD’s substrate framework and directs you to the formal papers where these interpretations are developed.

CD’s Interpretive Approach

From States to Substrate Configurations

Where quantum mechanics works with state vectors, CD works with substrate configurations subject to coherence constraints.

Key shift in perspective:

Dynamics arise from constraint reconciliation, not background time evolution
Change occurs because configurations are incompatible under tolerance limits
Time emerges from discrete resolution events (“commits”)

This reinterpretation is developed formally in:

Paper A (Substrate Mechanics) — Discrete substrate definition, constraint systems, commit semantics
Paper M1 (Cohesion Mechanism) — Reconciliation and closure operations

Quantum Phenomena in CD Terms

The B-series papers develop how quantum structure emerges from substrate mechanics under specific conditions. Below is a conceptual map showing where each quantum concept appears in the programme.

Mapping Quantum Concepts to CD

Superposition → Uncommitted Alternatives

Quantum view: Multiple states exist in superposition until measurement.

CD interpretation: Multiple substrate configurations remain uncommitted (not yet reconciled) and continue to evolve in parallel under tolerance constraints.

→ Developed in Paper B1 (Quantum State Representation) — Linear amplitude spaces as representational necessities for mergeable divergent histories.

Interference → Mergeability of Histories

Quantum view: Probability amplitudes interfere, producing characteristic patterns.

CD interpretation: Substrate histories interfere when they remain mergeable under reconciliation — that is, when their configurations can be brought into coherence without violating tolerance.

→ Developed in Paper B4 (Quantum Dynamics) — Schrödinger-class evolution as closure-preserving transport.

Measurement → Reconciliation-Forcing Constraints

Quantum view: Measurement causes wavefunction collapse to definite outcomes.

CD interpretation: Introduction of constraints that cannot be encapsulated (globally propagating records) forces reconciliation, partitioning previously mergeable histories.

→ Developed in Paper B5 (Measurement and Outcome Selection, in preparation) — Measurement as tolerance-exhausting constraint introduction.

Note: Paper B5 (forthcoming) addresses measurement structure but does not claim to derive the Born rule. The Born rule remains an open research question in the programme.

Entanglement → Non-Factorisable Joint Constraints

Quantum view: Composite systems can exhibit correlations not reducible to local states.

CD interpretation: When substrate constraints apply jointly to multiple subsystems and cannot be factored into independent local constraints, the resulting configuration is non-separable.

→ Developed in Paper B2 (Entanglement) — Tensor product structure as representational bookkeeping for joint admissibility.

Quantisation → Discrete Stability Basins

Quantum view: Observable quantities take discrete values (energy levels, angular momentum, etc.).

CD interpretation: Only discrete mode configurations admit stable, repeatable closure under finite tolerance. Continuous configurations generically fail closure and cannot persist as representable states. This discreteness is understood as a stability-selection result under commit semantics.

→ Developed in Paper B3 (Spectral Discreteness) and formalised via the M-CON series (particularly M-CON3) — Quantisation as selection of discrete stability basins under commit semantics and tolerance limits.

Quick Reference Table

For readers who know quantum mechanics, here’s a quick mapping to guide your reading:

Quantum Concept	CD Interpretation	Primary Paper Reference
State vectors	Amplitude representations over uncommitted substrate configurations	Paper B1
Superposition	Uncommitted, mergeable substrate alternatives	Paper B1
Interference	Mergeability of substrate histories under tolerance	Paper B4
Quantisation	Discrete stability basins under commit semantics (M-CON3)	Paper B3, M-CON3
Entanglement	Non-factorisable joint admissibility constraints	Paper B2
Measurement	Introduction of reconciliation-forcing constraints	Paper B5 (in preparation)
Decoherence	Partition due to tolerance exhaustion	Paper B5 (in preparation)
Unitary evolution	Schrödinger-class, norm-preserving transport between commits	Paper B4

What CD Does Not Yet Claim

It’s important to understand the current scope of the CD programme regarding quantum mechanics:

Established Results (B1–B4)

Linear amplitude structure is representationally necessary
Discrete spectra emerge from closure stability (selection result, M-CON3)
Schrödinger-class, norm-preserving evolution is strongly selected by closure-preserving transport (B4), without assuming Hilbert space or unitarity as primitives
Entanglement arises from non-factorisable constraints

Active Research (B5 and Beyond)

Born rule derivation — Under investigation, not yet claimed
Measurement problem resolution — Framework proposed, not yet complete
Weak vs strong interaction ontology — Interpretive framework, not formal derivation
Field/particle ontology — Conceptual framing, awaiting G-series formalisation

Explicitly Speculative

Phase as accumulated mismatch (conceptual interpretation, not formal result)
Specific phenomenological predictions (e.g., neutrino anomalies)
Detailed interaction classifications

If you encounter claims beyond B1–B4 results, they should be understood as:

interpretive guideposts,
research directions, or
provisional frameworks subject to revision.

The formal programme maintains careful discipline about what has been derived vs what remains under investigation.

Relationship to Standard Quantum Mechanics

CD does not replace quantum mechanics. Instead, it aims to:

Explain why quantum structure is stable and effective
Show how quantum features could emerge from substrate constraints
Provide a substrate-level grounding for quantum formalism

If CD is correct, quantum mechanics would be understood as the natural calculus for representing substrate behaviour under specific constraint regimes, rather than as a fundamental theory requiring separate axioms.

This is an explanatory programme, not a competing formalism.

What This Means Practically

For quantum-trained readers, CD offers:

Alternative ontology — Substrate configurations instead of state vectors as fundamental
Conceptual clarity — Mechanistic grounding for puzzling quantum features
Research programme — Systematic investigation of how quantum structure emerges

CD may be useful if you:

Find standard quantum interpretations unsatisfying
Want a mechanistic substrate-level account
Are interested in foundations research
Seek connections between quantum theory and information theory

Further Exploration

Order-Theoretic Lens — Mathematical structure and refinement
Constructor-Theoretic Lens — Task-possibility interpretation
Published Papers — All papers by series
Contact — Discussion and questions

Note: This lens provides an interpretive guide, not a replacement for the formal B-series papers. For precise statements of what has been formally derived, see the papers directly. For programme scope and epistemic status, see R-DCC.