Jestin’s Constant and Projection-Based Collapse: A Comparative Analysis of Modal and Structural Explanations in Quantum Measurement

This paper compares two non-collapse approaches to the quantum measurement problem: Erik Axelkrans’ projection-based structural account and the Modal Actuality Framework grounded in Jestin’s Constant (J). While Axelkrans argues that collapse is an effective phenomenon arising from projecting quantum descriptions onto classical measurement domains, the Modal Actuality Framework proposes a metaphysical invariant that regulates the divergence between modal openness and classical actualisation. I argue that these two approaches operate at distinct explanatory levels—structural and metaphysical—and that their insights are complementary rather than competing. Axelkrans clarifies the representational boundaries that generate effective collapse, whereas the J-framework explains why such boundaries exist and why actualisation must be irreversible. The comparison illuminates how structural constraints and metaphysical invariants jointly contribute to a unified understanding of measurement, information conservation, and the stability of classical reality.