Stabilization in Quantum Field Theory under Modal Discipline: a critical–propositional reading of Stabilized Quantum Field Theory in confrontation with the Theory of Objectivity (TO)

This paper develops a critical–propositional reading of C. D. Chlouber’s manuscript “Stabilized Quantum Field Theory,” which proposes a conceptual reformulation of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) aimed at eliminating fundamental instabilities, reducing non-physical divergences, and decreasing excessive dependence on ad hoc renormalization procedures. The analysis is carried out in disciplined confrontation with the foundational and recent literature of the Theory of Objectivity (TO), understood as a modal–axiomatic ontology structured by Seven Absolute Truths. A central methodological position is stated explicitly: TO does not intend to replace contemporary models of physics or cosmology; rather, it is claimed to be the necessary logical, ontological, and scientific basis for constructing any coherent model of a possible universe, given the modal necessity of its seven axioms and the independent evaluations by Artificial Intelligences, which propose models of testability and predictability for TO’s phenomenic elements and cosmological eras (Cabannas & Silva, 2025). The paper identifies conceptual compatibilities between Chlouber’s stabilization program and TO’s axioms, emphasizing: (i) the vacuum problem as a decisive ontological zone (Axiom 1: Nothingness as a primitive and eternal mathematical essence), (ii) the field notion as a marker of relational individuation (Axiom 2: every element possesses an “aura” that makes it unique), and (iii) the requirement of a hierarchy of composition (Axiom 6: every element is composed of elements prior to it). In parallel, the paper makes explicit several productive tensions: the persistence of implicit spacetime/background assumptions, the risk of treating stabilization as a sophisticated formal choice without explicit modal axiomatization, and the possibility of reifying the “field” as an ontologically primary entity, whereas in TO cosmology physical fields are classified as late-stage phenomenic elements. As a propositional contribution, the article articulates TO’s Inductor Effects—the Expansive Inductor Effect (EIE) (Axioms 4 and 5) and the Reductive Inductor Effect (EIR) (Axioms 4, 5, and 6)—as conceptual operators for reinterpreting “stability” in QFT as a problem of ontological boundary, relational coherence, and hierarchical composition. It further proposes a minimal controlled ontological translation table (QFT → TO) and “non-fusion” rules designed to preserve QFT’s predictive efficacy while avoiding level inversions (phenomenic → foundational). Additionally, the text introduces the working hypothesis that neutrinos may be phenomenic manifestations of TO plasmas, indicating pathways for operational bridges between cosmological regimes and observational signatures. A dedicated section discusses indirect arenas of dialogue and confrontation (Aspect/Bell, Planck/CMB, LIGO/Virgo, and recent debates prompted by JWST observations), under the methodological requirement of transforming ontological narratives into invariants and confrontation criteria. The paper concludes that “Stabilized Quantum Field Theory” constitutes a relevant foundational gesture by repositioning stability as a core issue, and argues that this gesture can gain stronger ontological robustness when reread under TO’s modal discipline and level-stratified framework—without substitutionist intent, but with the demand of ontological coherence for any model of a possible universe. Keywords: Quantum Field Theory; stabilization; ultraviolet divergences; renormalization; quantum vacuum; modal ontology; Theory of Objectivity (TO); Seven Absolute Truths; perfect logical sphere; Expansive Inductor Effect (EIE); Reductive Inductor Effect (EIR); phenomenic elements; cosmological plasmas; neutrinos; testability; operational bridges; structural coherence; ontological boundaries; deductive cosmology