Hello,
I’m not a physicist, but an artist driven — by illness and existential urgency — to understand the foundations of the world from first principles. Lacking formal training and facing cognitive limitations, I tried to ground my thinking in what seemed absolutely irreducible:

There is experience.

From this, I constructed what I call a Reflexive Tension Ontology — a framework in which a minimal subjectivity reflexively relates to itself through the tension between being and non-being. This tension differentiates, giving rise to structure, perception, and phenomena. I’m aware this touches on philosophical traditions I may not fully know.

Despite my limitations, I tried to confront this model with physics. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics — particularly the Born rule and the collapse postulate — seemed like a good testing ground.

So I did the following:

• Formalized my ontological idea into a very simple mechanism for “collapse” based on internal reflexivity.
• Tested it against the Born rule using simulations.
• Then ran these comparisons on actual QPUs (quantum processors, e.g., via IBM's quantum platform).

 The result?

• The model’s outputs correlate surprisingly well with Born rule predictions in standard setups.
• But in situations where Born has no clear prediction (non-normalized interference patterns, incomplete collapse), the model slightly diverges, while still matching the empirical tendencies of QPU outcomes.
• My formalism is clearly imperfect, even rudimentary — but something in the structure may behave meaningfully.

I’m aware to be incompetent and this is far from a finished theory. I lack the training to push it further.
But I wonder: is there something here worth examining? Could a trained physicist or philosopher spot either a fatal flaw, or a hidden insight?

I’ve documented everything (as I could, with code and graphs) in English here:
https://zenodo.org/records/15986302

I would be grateful for any critical feedback, advice, or even refutations.
I’m not trying to prove anything — only to see clearly whether there’s something real, or just a mirage.

Thanks for reading.
Yves