Relational Actuality and the Groundless Ground: The Dzogchen View as a Research Programme in Quantum Foundations

This paper articulates the ontology of the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition as four precise postulates and assesses it as a Lakatosian research programme in quantum foundations. The postulates state that there are no absolute observed events, dynamics is unitary at all scales with classical definiteness perspectival, spacetime is emergent, and the ground of phenomena is awareness. The first three postulates are assessed by ordinary physical standards, while the fourth is quarantined from evidential claims.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Preprint, June 2026. Under journal submission. Also deposited at PhilSci-Archive. This paper articulates the ontology of the Tibetan Dzogchen ("Great Perfection") tradition as four precise postulates and assesses it as a Lakatosian research programme in quantum foundations. The postulates: (P1) there are no absolute observed events — actuality is relative to the systems that register it; (P2) dynamics is unitary at all scales, with classical definiteness perspectival rather than produced by observer-independent collapse; (P3) spacetime is not fundamental but emergent; (P4) the ground of phenomena is of the nature of awareness. P1–P3 admit assessment by ordinary physical standards; P4 does not and is explicitly quarantined from all evidential claims. Four open problems are identified whose resolution differentially supports or undermines P1–P3 relative to absolutist physicalism: extended Wigner's-friend tests of Local Friendliness inequalities (including the observer-ladder programme); laboratory bounds on objective-collapse models (GRW/CSL and Diósi–Penrose); the reconstruction of quantum theory from agent-centric axioms; and the derivation of spacetime from non-spatiotemporal degrees of freedom. For each, the experimental or theoretical outcome that would count against the programme is stated in advance, collected in a single refutation-conditions table reflecting the published record as of June 2026. The paper claims no derivation of new dynamics from contemplative sources and explicitly rejects quantum-consciousness hypotheses concerning brain function. Its contribution is methodological: converting a contemplative ontology into pre-stated, empirically discriminable commitments. Transparency: this work was produced through human–AI collaboration. Conception, research direction, and editorial control are the author's; execution (literature verification, derivations and their numerical checks, drafting, revision) was carried out by Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, 2026) under the author's prompting. Full disclosure appears in the manuscript's Declarations section. The author bears sole responsibility for all claims.