In [a] paper, three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses. It is perhaps less of a full-blown interpretation than a new philosophical framework for contemplating those quantum mysteries. At its root, the new idea holds that the common conception of “reality” is too limited. By expanding the definition of reality, the quantum’s mysteries disappear. In particular, “real” should not be restricted to “actual” objects or events in spacetime. Reality ought also be assigned to certain possibilities, or “potential” realities, that have not yet become “actual.” These potential realities do not exist in spacetime, but nevertheless are “ontological” — that is, real components of existence.

“This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility,” write Ruth Kastner, Stuart Kauffman and Michael Epperson.

Considering potential things to be real is not exactly a new idea, as it was a central aspect of the philosophy of Aristotle, 24 centuries ago. An acorn has the potential to become a tree; a tree has the potential to become a wooden table. Even applying this idea to quantum physics isn’t new. Werner Heisenberg, the quantum pioneer famous for his uncertainty principle, considered his quantum math to describe potential outcomes of measurements of which one would become the actual result. The quantum concept of a “probability wave,” describing the likelihood of different possible outcomes of a measurement, was a quantitative version of Aristotle’s potential, Heisenberg wrote in his well-known 1958 book Physics and Philosophy. “It introduced something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality.” — Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities

Very interesting. Experiments on Bell's theorem has information moving instantaneously such that we have to question how space, time, or causality works in the quantum realm. There is no need for general relativity to work in the world of quantum because it is a different type of physical space

In the Aristotelian scheme, matter is characterized as potential, and form is actual. And of course both are real aspects of reality, with a qualification though, pure potential as prime matter, (matter without form). is demonstrated by the cosmological argument to be impossible. This point is sometimes debated because Aristotle lays out a lengthy description of what prime matter would be, if it were real, only to demonstrate that it cannot be real. If one does not grasp the cosmological argument it appears like Aristotle supports the reality of prime matter.

Dividing an object to find a different scheme of physics leads itself to use terms and ideas from old philosophies without, however, accepting their full systems

So the cosmological argument was mentioned. Matter is able to be explained according to material laws. If an aspect of eternal time and infinite space, both of which can be in various ways, is accepted the cosmological argument is not necessary as a proof. In fact, calling objects hybrids of form and prime matter most nicely sets up a system within which relativity and quantum mechanics can exist side by side. Nor does time have to be infinite, but could have existed in a finite loop as it was creating with the first motion of matter following the laws of gravity. Einstein and Hawking each had a theory as to how the cosmological argument fails and any appeals to the contingency of the world is going beyond science and into unfounded philosophy. The universe is contingent and necessary at different times in that it changes from substance to flux, always following the laws of matter-energy equivalence. There is no need for non-material energy in the world

Aristole & Newton Puzzle

A very astute person, sorry I forgot faer name, once posted a comment to the effect that we could develop formulae for motion such that friction doesn't appear as a force but would be automatically part of the equations of motion. In this case, Aristotle's physics would be right on the money - objects need a constant force applied to it to stay in motion.

Newton overturned Aristotelian physics by claiming that friction is a force that slows down and stops moving objects and in its absence, objects move in a straight line at constant velocity.

Can we then revive Aristotelian physics and remove friction as a force and assume that a constant force needs to be applied to objects to keep them in motion? The task then is to search for this mysterious force. This isn't quite as crazy as it sounds - the physics community is all abuzz about so-called dark energy, the putative energy that drives cosmic inflation. In other words, physicists are of the view that some kinda energy (force) is necessary to explain the expansion of the universe. Yes, the actual reason is rather dull - acceleration of cosmic expansion which in Newtonian mechanics implies a force (energy, dark energy). However, such a point of view doesn't necessarily mean constant force isn't necessary to keep bodies in motion, right? My highschool level physics doesn't allow me to further analyze this rather interesting possibility.

All very interesting. It is hard to know what causes force because we only know it's effects. They say gravity is not a force although it hits like a force. Are we feeling only the hard surface and no force at all when we hit the ground?

I personally believe that Aristotle was an empiricist along with being a great thinker. 
He seemed to have pointed out the first law of Newton (inertia); although he didn’t believe this law was valid, it was only because he didn't believe in a vacuum space; When speaking of the “void”, Aristotle writes…

Physics
Book IV
Part 8 

“Further, no one could say why a thing once set in motion should stop anywhere; for why should it stop here rather than here? So that a thing will either be at rest or must be moved ad infinitum, unless something more powerful get in its way. “


Aristotle goes on to write:

“Further, in point of fact things that are thrown move though that which gave them their impulse is not touching them, either by reason of mutual replacement, as some maintain, or because the air that has been pushed pushes them with a movement quicker than the natural locomotion of the projectile wherewith it moves to its proper place. But in a void none of these things can take place, nor can anything be moved save as that which is carried is moved.” 

Some have assumed this to mean that a force was needed in order to keep an object in motion...
I read it differently. First, when he said "nor can anything be moved save as that which is carried is moved", it was about a body moving within a void, that which he didn't believe could be possible.


I think the statements above might possibly be indicating  some form of aerodynamic implication, instead. The natural movement of the body is the downward movement.
Therefore, if we let the first statement stand as is :

“a thing will either be at rest or must be moved ad infinitum, unless something more powerful get in its way. “ (in a void)

Then, the horizontal movement performed by the force is maintained because: 

“the air that has been pushed pushes them with a movement quicker than the natural locomotion of the projectile wherewith it moves to its proper place”.
things can take place, nor can anything be moved save as that which is carried is moved.” 

To me, this could easily mean that the horizontal movement of the object is maintained without the action of dropping down (natural movement) due to the medium…air in this case.