Ontology

This thesis builds on my previously formulated Dual-Closure framework (The Dual-Closure Law of Authentic Feeling, The Dual-Closure Law of Normative Grounding, The Dual-Closure Thesis, and A Constraint-Based Framework for Ultimate Grounding). The framework is independently established in pre-print manuscripts; this paper applies it diagnostically to Bostrom's Simulation Hypothesis, not to rely on his probabilistic argument, but to reveal the ontological and normative incompleteness inherent in any purely contingent or simulated model of reality. While Bostrom fosters epistemic skepticism about empirical reality, (...) he leaves ontological and normative grounding unresolved. My framework supplies non-contingent closure for authentic subjective experience and objective moral normativity—conditions unmet in contingent or simulated realms. Extending this framework via a post-empirical closure domain explains why human death differs ontologically from AI deletion and why naturalistic simulationism cannot ground finality, consciousness, or morality. The analysis demonstrates that dual-closure conditions are structurally necessary for existential and normative completion, showing the limits of simulationism while retaining conceptual neutrality. -/- Reader Note on Framework Independence: The Dual-Closure framework is fully independently established and does not rely on Bostrom’s hypothesis for validity. Bostrom’s argument serves solely as a diagnostic case to illustrate the structural incompleteness of contingent or simulated models of reality. (shrink)

Classical logic, rooted in the Aristotelian axiom of Identity (A = A) and Leibnizian Principle of Indiscernibles, represents a "frozen" abstraction of reality that implies zero entropic tension. This paper rejects this "static fallacy." Synthesizing the dialectical materialism of Engels with the process philosophy of Whitehead, Schelling, and Deleuze, I argue that tension (metabolic cost) scales inversely with stability but never vanishes. The transition between states involves a "Macro-Visual Contradiction Cloud", a thermodynamic singularity where tension is infinite. Crucially, unlike standard (...) dialetheism which treats contradiction as a semantic property, I argue that this Cloud is phenomenologically unobservable (Noumenal/The Real); the act of observation collapses the tension. Thus, ontological contradiction is physically real but phenomenologically inaccessible, existing only as an unobservable thermodynamic singularity that logic can asymptotically approach but never inhabit. I propose "Thermodynamic-Dialectical Logic" (TDL) not as a calculus of inference, but as a formal ontology that grounds logic in the physical laws of energy dissipation. (shrink)

We keep learning the hard way that using the same words doesn’t necessarily mean we’re pointing at the same thing. Two people will say “truth,” “harm,” “freedom,” “safety,” “trauma,” “intelligence,” and feel aligned for a moment, but then their conversation snaps and turns hostile. When you look closely, the turn isn’t mysterious. It happens because their words were doing social work, not referential work. They created the feeling of agreement without the substance of shared reference. Their terms functioned like a (...) flag instead of a pointer. This has become everyday life. Agreement by vocabulary, disagreement by reality. (shrink)

The present work does not introduce a new ontology. Rather, it investigates the structural conditions under which ontology becomes possible at all. It proposes a pre-ontological level of analysis in which, prior to any observation and prior to any subject–object distinction, the Whole can differentiate. It is argued that the first possible distinction available to any subject is necessarily binary (Nothing–Something), whereas the unobserved differentiation of the Whole cannot be binary and instead requires a triadic structure. This triadic differentiation is (...) defined as a set of co-necessary structures of manifestation—Movement, Energy, and Manifestation—which are neither entities nor categories, but structural conditions of differentiation. The analysis does not belong to epistemology, physics, or phenomenology, but to a level prior to the emergence of position and observability, which is here defined as Pre-Ontology. (shrink)

This paper proposes a unified account of subjectivity grounded in the concept of incomplete computation. It argues that the two standard meanings of “subjectivity” in philosophical discourse—epistemic subjectivity (perspectival limitation, opinion, partial knowledge) and ontological subjectivity (first-person givenness, qualia, phenomenal experience)—are not distinct phenomena, but two manifestations of the same structural condition: the interruption of integration due to cost. At the level of the individual, these two forms of subjectivity coincide. The subject both speaks from itself and exists as a (...) remainder of incomplete cognitive and energetic integration. This convergence explains why subjective experience is inseparable from epistemic limitation. Within this framework, consciousness appears as a special case of subjectivity, arising where integration is halted by thermodynamic or computational constraints—a view consistent with, but not reducible to, existing theories of information integration. At the social level, however, this coincidence breaks down. Societies generate epistemic remainders—unassimilated perspectives, suffering, and costs—without producing corresponding ontological subjectivity for most of their members. Through mechanisms of classification, genre, and infrastructural distribution, social systems stabilize incomplete integration while preventing it from becoming lived experience. The paper develops this thesis through a series of architectural and historical examples, most notably the Roman Colosseum and the modern Panopticon. Contrary to standard interpretations, it argues that systems of visibility do not operate by enforcing experience through exposure. Rather, they function by allowing extensive visibility without phenomenality—by enabling subjects to see without experiencing. The Colosseum and the Panopticon are thus shown to share a common logic: both rely on calibrated refusal rather than total integration. The paper concludes by suggesting that power in modern societies operates not through secrecy or surveillance, but through the management of the conditions under which epistemic visibility collapses—or fails to collapse—into ontological subjectivity. (shrink)

The measurement problem of quantum mechanics is predominantly treated in contemporary foundations research as an unresolved problem of dynamics or ontology. Accordingly, dominant solution approaches aim either at additional collapse mechanisms (e.g., GRW-type models), at ontological branching (Many-Worlds interpretations), or at an information-theoretic reinterpretation of state and measurement. The present contribution advances a different thesis. It shows that, despite their methodological differences, these approaches share a common categorical presupposition: they treat the transition from possibility to facticity as an intra-worldly describable (...) occurrence—whether as a dynamical process, an ontological splitting, or a state update. It is precisely this presupposition that is called into question here. Starting from an ontological distinction between possibility and facticity, it is argued that measurement cannot be understood as a temporal event within an already structured world. Rather, it marks a boundary at which temporal, processual, and informational descriptions lose their applicability. The transition to objectivity is therefore not an explainable event, but an irreversible restriction of the space of possibility, through which world becomes factically binding in the first place. Against this background, dynamical collapse models, Many-Worlds interpretations, and information-theoretic ontologies are comparatively analyzed. The aim is not a refutation of these approaches, but a precise boundary determination: it is shown in what way they each provide formally successful answers to partial aspects of the measurement problem, while at the same time presupposing the categorical status of facticization that they claim to explain. The contribution does not understand itself as an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics, but as an ontological clarification of its domain of validity. It proposes that the measurement problem should no longer be treated as the search for a hidden mechanism, but as an indication of a structural boundary of physical description itself. (shrink)

Abstract This paper clarifies the ethical scope and epistemic limitations of the Structural Invariance Ontology (Σᵢₛ). The system is not intended as a comprehensive metaphysical doctrine, nor as a normative theory of history, value, or meaning. Its purpose is strictly formal: to establish the internal consistency and modal viability of an ontology in which structural relations remain invariant under transformation. Using S4 modal logic and Henkin-style semantic constructions, the framework demonstrates that the principles of Structural Invariance and Dynamic Latency are (...) logically sustainable and free from internal contradiction. The resulting ontology should therefore be understood as a formal model of possibility, rather than as a claim to absolute or empirical truth. The introduction of quantitative indicators, such as the Technological Crystallization Index (TCI) and the Material Transmissibility Index (MTI), is explicitly heuristic and diagnostic. These indices do not encode moral hierarchies, cultural value judgments, or deterministic historical laws. Their intended function is to identify risks of structural information loss and to support strategies of epistemic preservation, not to justify reductionism or normative exclusion. Overall, Σᵢₛ offers a formal infrastructure for thinking about persistence, conservation, and information continuity without collapsing into epistemic nihilism or historical determinism. While logic establishes that structural conservation is modally possible, ethical responsibility governs how such formal insights may be applied to social and historical contexts. (shrink)

The persistent incompatibility between quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) is commonly treated in physics as a technical or mathematical problem. Either a deeper dynamics is sought that connects both theories, or a formal meta-theory that unifies their concepts. This paper proposes a different reading. It claims neither a unification nor a correction of the existing theories. Instead, it shows that the contradiction between QM and GR is not a deficit of the theories themselves, but the consequence of an (...) unspoken ontological omission: the lack of a determination of the transition from possibility to facticity. At the center stands the thesis that quantum mechanics and relativity mutually imply one another without being connected by a process, a path, or a shared dynamics. The transition between openness and stability is not a physical event within the world, but a shift in the conditions under which a world can occur at all. Using the terms indimergence and shift of being (Seinsverschiebung), this transition is specified as a boundary structure: indimergence designates the non-dynamical coercion toward objectivity, while shift of being denotes the irreversible change of the conditions of further world-formation. From this perspective, it becomes intelligible why the conflict between QM and GR cannot be “solved” — and why precisely therein lies its ontological significance. (shrink)

This essay traces the genealogy of negative space as a fundamental ontological category across Western and Eastern philosophical traditions. Far from mere absence or privation, negative space is conceived here as a structured, irreducible, and generative void that serves as the precondition for being, differentiation, relationality, and appearance. From Heraclitus’s flux and Plato’s beyond, through medieval apophatic theology (Pseudo-Dionysius, Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa), modern dialectics and phenomenology (Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty), psychoanalytic and phenomenological accounts of lack (Lacan, Nixon), and late (...) twentieth-century philosophy of mind (Chalmers, Nagel, Block), to Eastern convergences in Daoism (Laozi), Madhyamaka (Nāgārjuna), Chan/Zen, Advaita Vedānta (Śaṅkara), and Dzogchen, the same invariant feature recurs: reality holds together through what it structurally withholds. Self-referential closure emerges in later developments as a mechanism that lends internal dynamics to this absence, yet the core remains ontological rather than derivative or psychological. The essay argues that negative space constitutes a perennial, cross-cultural ontological primitive—analogous to spacetime in physics—whose recognition offers a unifying lens for understanding the limits and generativity of being itself. (shrink)

This philosophical treatise presents a rigorous defense of radical determinism, asserting that human freedom is a cognitive illusion constructed by the "self" to mask its own inevitability. The author posits a multi-layered structure of confinement, where the individual is trapped first by the invisible web of social norms, then by the mechanical laws of physics, and finally by a neurobiological architecture that dictates thought through chemical necessity. Central to the text is the concept of "Brute Consciousness"—the idea that the universe (...) is a singular, energetic totality using biological life as a specialized technology to achieve self-recognition. By introducing the "Formula of Structural Collapse," the author utilizes an atypical neurobiological perspective to strip away semantic noise, ultimately framing existence not as an act of personal authorship, but as a linear, mathematical unfolding where "is" inevitably becomes "shall be," and the individual serves as a conscious witness to the universe’s own self-fulfillment. (shrink)

The essay presents a perspective that explains why the universe contains these particular things rather than others, the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, problems of consciousness, how things influence one another, their change, randomness, etc. It is a continuation and further development of the ideas presented in "Mengen: An Essay on Consciousness".

Redefining mental health is not interpretive gloss or an attempt to rescue our vocabulary by reifying its assumptions in new terms. It is a statement of minimal commitments about the least one must assume in order to speak coherently about minds, meaning, and breakdown without covertly reintroducing metaphysics whenever explanation runs thin. The following axioms are intentionally sparse because surplus premises do not remain surplus; they calcify into foundations, and foundations tend to be defended long after their use has expired. (...) Each axiom is therefore not a preference but a constraint on what may legitimately be posited in subsequent analysis, and they are arranged so that later claims are disciplined by earlier ones rather than floating free as optional rhetoric. (shrink)

Standard interpretations of quantum mechanics often maintain that physical reality is incomplete until it is observed, or else that the collapse of the wave function constitutes a fundamental ontological event associated with the act of measurement. Such readings conflate observation with physical interaction and reify the theory’s formalism into a metaphysics of indeterminacy. This paper proposes a reinterpretation of the collapse of the wave function as an effective, post-realization phenomenon: a descriptive projection that occurs within a globally relational state that (...) is ontologically determined. By integrating decoherence theory, an analysis of the double-slit experiment, and a reinforced block-universe model, it is argued that quantum entities do not alternate between wave-like and corpuscular natures. Rather, different experimental regimes restrict the degrees of freedom accessible to local description, yielding distinct empirical manifestations. This approach preserves determinism, avoids an observer-dependent ontology, and provides a non-mystical explanation of quantum entanglement grounded in the ontological primacy of global relational structure over local spatiotemporal description. (shrink)

A widespread assumption structures moral philosophy, political theory, institutional normativity, and contemporary discussions of artificial intelligence: if something should be done, then it must be done. The transition from should to must is typically treated as self-evident, requiring no independent justification. This paper argues that this assumption is neither logically nor ontologically innocent. The central claim is simple but underexamined: no obligation follows from truth, correctness, or justification alone. Bindingness is not a normative entailment of what is right, but an (...) ontological condition that requires a bearer capable of carrying obligation as a load. What is missing in many normative frameworks is not moral seriousness or justificatory rigor, but ontological legitimacy. This paper does not propose a competing moral theory, nor does it dispute accounts of what ought to be done. Instead, it introduces a minimal ontological filter: conditions under which obligation can meaningfully bind at all. Where such conditions are absent, the language of obligation does not weaken—it collapses. (shrink)

In contemporary physics, information-theoretic concepts are increasingly used as if information were an indimergent and additive quantity—that is, as if it could exist independently of world-integration, remain globally conserved, and be summed across the universe. This implicit assumption underlies claims such as “information is never lost,” computation-based cosmologies, and simulation-theoretic ontologies. This paper argues that this constitutes a categorical overextension. Within the MNO approach (Minimal-Non-Object), information is reclassified as a response quantity: it arises exclusively where difference is emergent and stably (...) integrated into world-relations. Information is world-capable only insofar as it is able to sustain stable, relational reality and remain causally effective within a shared world. Information may remain formally conserved without possessing this world-capability. This distinction clarifies central paradoxes in black-hole physics and the quantum-mechanical measurement problem, and places principled limits on information-theoretic ontologies, without altering physical equations or introducing new entities. (shrink)

This paper serves as an entry point into the long-term research program developed by Timothy Speed. It is addressed to researchers who encounter individual works by the author without being familiar with or able to oversee the overall context of the extensive, interdisciplinary corpus. The body of work comprises theoretical texts, monographs, institution- and law-critical analyses, as well as artistic research outputs, which together form a coherent, operatorically organized research program. The individual publications are not conceived as a linear chain (...) of argumentation, but as recursive, structurally coupled operations that address questions of world-constitution, work, value, perception, and institutional violence across different epistemic registers. Central to the program is a non-representational, embodied epistemology emerging from neurodivergent perception, which understands knowledge not as representation but as a structure-constituting practice. Within the corpus, theoretical models do not function primarily in an explanatory manner, but operatively: they generate real epistemic, social, and institutional effects. The present paper does not provide a summary of individual texts and does not offer a didactic introduction. Instead, it outlines the basic structure of the research program, its guiding questions, central operators, and thematic clusters, and identifies possible entry points for different disciplinary backgrounds. Its aim is to enable orientation within a deliberately non-linear body of work, without simplifying or normalizing its epistemic logic. A part of the research program deliberately operates at the intersections of consciousness studies, theoretical physics, and epistemology, in order to examine the ontological. (shrink)

Contemporary metaphysics faces a persistent impasse between physicalism, which struggles to accommodate consciousness and semantic content, and various forms of dualism or panpsychism, which struggle to establish causal relevance. This paper introduces Selective Reality Theory (SRT), a novel ontological framework that proposes selection as the fundamental primitive underlying both physical matter and phenomenal experience. Drawing on Whitehead’s process philosophy, quantum decoherence theory (specifically Quantum Darwinism), and information-theoretic thermodynamics, we develop a tripartite ontology consisting of the Potential Domain (L0), the Manifest (...) Domain (L1), and the Convergence Domain (L2). We posit that "existence" is not a static property of substances but a dynamic artifact of selection processes anchored by a "Ghost Operator" (G). This framework dissolves the hard problem of consciousness by re-describing it as a category error—mistaking the selection process for its output—and offers a unified, formalizable mechanism for how "bits" of information become "its" of physical reality (Wheeler's It from Bit). We conclude by demonstrating how SRT resolves the tension between causal closure and mental efficacy through the concept of "Ontological Friction." -/- . (shrink)

This paper addresses the demarcation problem by proposing externality as the necessary second criterion alongside empiricism for distinguishing reliable from unreliable knowledge. While empiricism requires observational grounding, it cannot differentiate science from pseudoscience—astrologers make empirical observations yet astrology differs fundamentally from physics. Externality identifies phenomena governed by laws outside human influence: gravity, DNA mechanisms, and molecular behavior exist independently of human belief or culture. Two knowledge categories emerge from these criteria. Savoir is knowledge both empirically experienced and externally constrained (physics, (...) chemistry, engineering, practical skills). Savoir translates our progressive discovery and understanding of Reality, which is the sum of all externally constrained Laws in the universe. Connaissance is knowledge neither empirically experienced nor externally constrained, categorized into five types: - Savoir-Like Connaissance, knowledge that is empirically grounded but not personally experienced; - Imaginary/Platonic World Building : Knowledge based on arbitrary assumptions (substituting externality) and relying on deductive logic to provide an internally consistent narrative (substituting empiricism) - Empirical/Aristotelian World Building : similar to Imaginary World Building, but uses biased empiricism and inductive reasoning to justify their arbitrary assumptions - Opinions & Beliefs : knowledge that one cannot explain Additionnaly, the paper introduces the imagination fallacy—the belief that rational thought arrangement provides truth access— as the mechanism which allowed for connaissance to masquerade as savoir for millenia, up to this day. This framework offers both philosophical and practical implications. Philosophically, it dissolves longstanding problems including the epistemic regress, Münchhausen trilemma, Gettier problem, and raven paradox by systematically distinguishing externally constrained knowledge from human construction. Practically, it provides operational diagnostic questions accessible to non-experts for evaluating knowledge claims, identifying when sophisticated rhetoric masks weak empirical foundations. (shrink)

The increasing visibility of neurodivergent forms of existence—particularly autistic and ADHD-shaped ways of living—confronts existing legal, social, and epistemic systems with a fundamental structural problem. These systems rest implicitly on the assumption of a uniform human mode of existence, whose perception, self-regulation, communication, and productivity are treated as general standards. Deviations from these standards are legally addressed predominantly either as illness or as functional deviation to be corrected through adaptation, activation, or therapy. This paper argues that, under conditions of ontological (...) diversity, this order is not merely inadequate but structurally violent. The dichotomy “ill or capable of work” operates as a coercive architecture that either pathologizes neurodivergent people or forces them to adapt to neurotypical norms. An autonomous form of existence that is neither pathologized nor simultaneously rendered economically exploitable is largely not provided for within current law. The resulting phenomena—enforced masking, chronic exhaustion, health destabilization, institutional escalation, and social marginalization—are not recognized as systemic effects but are individualized and medicalized. Starting from an ontological determination of neurodivergent existence as autonomous, stable, and non-reducible modes of human world- and meaning-relation, the paper develops the concept of the right to ontological coexistence. This right denotes the claim of different human forms of existence to exist in legal equal worth without subordination, normalization, pathologization, or coercive valorization. Equal worth is explicitly not understood as uniformity, but as protection against being forced into integration within a structurally incompatible order. The paper demonstrates that existing concepts of inclusion and participation reach their limits where participation in fact demands normalization, and that a purely medical framing of neurodivergent forms of existence individualizes structural responsibility. Medicine is responsible for suffering, not for existence. Where ontological variants of human being are treated as clinical deviations, iatrogenic harm emerges. In legal terms, the paper derives central consequences from the right to ontological coexistence: the inadmissibility of abstract standards of reasonableness, the legal qualification of subsistence-conditioned adaptation requirements as coercion, institutional responsibility for masking-related harms, preventive protective duties independent of visible breakdown, and a two-tiered state obligation toward systemic transformation or—where this does not (yet) occur in fact—toward subsistence-securing compensation without pathologization, activation compulsion, or psychiatric dominance. The paper understands itself as a foundational text for the necessary further development of international human rights standards, in connection with existing instruments such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, yet going beyond their current application. It is addressed to courts, human rights bodies, legislators, and civil society actors, and aims to establish a new legal standard of review under conditions of real ontological diversity. (shrink)

Contemporary physics is characterized by high formal correctness, empirical stability, and technical effectiveness. At the same time, situations increasingly arise in which central phenomena—such as the direction of time, cosmological constants, measurement events, or emergence—are no longer ontologically integrated but stabilized through statistical, ensemble-based, or simulation-driven constructions. This practice appears as progress, yet marks a structural shift: explanation is replaced by placeholders. The present paper diagnoses this pattern as a statistical rescue reflex. This term denotes a recurring mechanism in which (...) formal residues are not recognized as boundary markers but externalized through statistics, simulation, or measure assumptions. The resulting models are correct, consistent, and functional—yet worldless. They stabilize describability without grounding a world. Building on the distinction between theoretical correctness and world-founding capacity, the paper does not analyze individual theories but a disciplinary mode of operation. It shows how the continued conflation of stabilization and knowledge leads to a self-distortion of research: models densify, simulations accelerate, while ontological orientation erodes. The contribution is not intended as a critique of physical methods, but as a diagnosis of a structural boundary that is currently being systematically bypassed. This paper functions as an interface text within a larger operator-based research corpus. Core concepts are applied here, not re-derived. The underlying research operates in a non-linear, rhythmically recursive epistemic mode grounded in an autistic form of structural perception; the present text provides an interface translation for academic contexts. (shrink)

This paper argues that the political order of the past decades rested on a fundamental error: the assumption that the world is, in principle, repairable. International institutions, interventions, and governance models operated under the implicit ontology that political interventions are reversible, translatable, or integrable. This assumption is not merely optimistic, but empirically, historically, and ontologically false. Political actions can produce ontological displacements: irreversible thresholds beyond which former realities are no longer addressable. After such enactments, there is no “return” – neither (...) institutionally nor morally. Repair then no longer functions as healing, but as the consolidation of a transformed world that has often lost its own capacity to be sustained. Drawing on 9/11, the Iraq War, and current geopolitical threshold cases in connection with the threat of occupying Greenland by U.S. President Trump, the paper shows that the failure of political order is not primarily strategic or normative, but epistemic. Abstract institutions simulate responsibility without being able to bear it. They operate in a state-based manner and remain structurally inaccessible to the embodied suffering of individuals. On this basis, the paper develops a new framework of political responsibility that takes not institutions but world-capability as its measure. Politics after the rightward shift – and after Trump – cannot consist in a mere restoration of institutions. It must acknowledge that not every exercise of power is repairable and that responsibility ends where worlds are irreversibly destroyed or displaced. Political responsibility does not begin with governance, but with the refusal of enactments whose price can no longer be borne. (shrink)

This paper treats the self as a recursive, continuity-preserving structure within the Codex Process. Identity is framed as a stabilized pattern that arises through self-reference and feedback, rather than as a static entity. This analysis initiates the inward arc of the Codex Process by formalizing selfhood in purely structural terms.

The question of whether reality is fundamentally digital or analog has captivated physicists, philosophers, and computer scientists for decades. Traditional approaches have forced this inquiry into a binary framework, seeking to classify reality as either discrete (digital) or continuous (analog). This paper presents a revolutionary paradigm shift through the introduction of the Triadic Information-Reality Framework (TIRF), which proposes that reality exists in three fundamental modes: Digital, Analog, and Liminal. Drawing upon recent experimental evidence from quantum mechanics, Wheeler's information-theoretic foundations, the (...) holographic principle, and dialectical philosophical analysis, we demonstrate that the digital-analog dichotomy represents a false binary that has constrained our understanding of reality's true nature. -/- Our framework resolves longstanding paradoxes in quantum mechanics, unifies disparate theoretical perspectives, and makes testable predictions about the behavior of physical systems across different scales. The Liminal mode, representing states that are "neither continuous nor discrete," provides a theoretical foundation for understanding quantum superposition, measurement transitions, and the emergence of spacetime at the Planck scale. Through mathematical formalization using mode state vectors and transition operators, we show how reality's character depends on observation parameters, scale, and temporal context. -/- The implications of TIRF extend beyond theoretical physics to quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and our fundamental understanding of information processing in the universe. We present four key experimental predictions that can distinguish our framework from existing theories, including mode transition signatures during quantum measurement, modified information bounds for each mode, triadic entanglement patterns, and novel computational complexity classes. This work represents the first comprehensive attempt to transcend the binary thinking that has dominated discussions of reality's nature, offering a more nuanced and empirically grounded understanding of existence itself. (shrink)

Illumination is a defining characteristic of natural environments, yet its nature and spatial structure remain poorly understood. I argue first that illumination is not simply light: it is an emergent, ecologically significant kind. Illumination has features not possessed by light, and contains self‐organizing structures that persist through the continual flow of light itself. These structures are immaterial and ephemeral, yet no less real for that. I then argue that these illumination entities are genuine objects of perception. This contrasts with the (...) majority view, which explains illumination‐dependent variations in appearance solely by appeal to the perceived properties of material objects. The argument exploits the proposed ontology, which shows that the structure of illumination is more like that of continuous masses of fluid than of discrete solids. Illumination entities are thus individuated not by rigid boundaries, but by stable patterns of intensity and flow. I argue that this fluid‐like structure is mirrored by a distinctive type of perceptual organization, whereby scenes are parsed into zones and flows of illumination at multiple scales. This organization involves attributing spatial‐structural features that apply distinctively to illumination, which warrants treating it as an object of perception. (shrink)

This polemic challenges the foundations of contemporary cognitive engineering by arguing that the crisis of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is not primarily a technological problem, but an ontological one. The dominant XAI paradigm rests on a tacit and rarely examined assumption: that the act of explanation is ontologically neutral with respect to its object. -/- Within the ontology of operational time, crossing the coherence threshold λ(c) radically alters a system’s status. What was previously a sum of operations becomes an irreducible (...) phased whole whose existence is identical with the ongoing structural work required to sustain its own persistence. -/- The key contribution of the paper is the formulation of a fundamental limitation: while local explainability — including behavioral approximations, correlations, and variable sensitivities — remains possible even above λ(c), ontological explainability, understood as the full reconstruction of an entity from its constituent elements, becomes structurally impossible. The act of reduction violates precisely the global phase coherence that constitutes the system as a whole and enables its autonomous operational temporality. -/- On this basis, the paper redefines artificial general intelligence (AGI) not as maximal functional universality, but as a system that has become the subject of its own operational time. It exposes a central paradox: the pursuit of total algorithmic transparency may undermine the very conditions required for the emergence of stable, genuinely autonomous artificial systems, reducing them instead to subcritical optimization architectures. -/- The work concludes with a call for a shift from the engineering of instructions to the engineering of phase sustenance — a new paradigm for designing systems that operate above the coherence threshold. (shrink)

According to Bruno Latour, making sense of the world through the assumptions of modernity underlies many ecological and political problems. He argues that binary categories such as nature and culture, subject and object, are actually intertwined, dynamic processes. While modern thought treats these distinctions as fixed realities, Latour argues that these are artificial boundaries. With his Actor-Network Theory, Latour proposes to conceive of the world not only through humans but also as a vast network encompassing non-human entities. Instead of providing (...) a passive backdrop for human actions, objects and natural elements function as active entities that directly influence social structures and environmental processes. This study, centering on Latour's critique of modernity and his call for a rethinking of the nature-society distinction, aims to examine a new understanding of ontology that proposes non-hierarchical relationships between humans and non-human entities and grasps social reality through multi-actor translation processes. In this context, we will first examine Latour's "sociology of commons," which reconsiders the formation of the social. Then, we will examine his understanding of political ecology, which proposes that this approach not be limited to an anthropocentric social theory but also includes non- human actors as part of political processes. Finally, we will present Latour's interpretation of the Gaia hypothesis and his perspective on understanding ecological crises. Thus, we will evaluate the social and ecological perspectives offered by Latour's idea of "moving towards a new ontology through networks.". (shrink)

Résumé : à travers l'évidence que fournit sa cohérence interne, cet exposé cherche à invalider l'idée d'une mathématique « objective ». -/- Abstract: Through the evidence of its internal coherence, this exposé tries to invalidate the idea of "objective" mathematics.

This paper presents a conceptual classification framework for physical theories based on the invariance properties preserved under projection, rather than on reduction to a single fundamental dynamics. Effective theories are treated as projection-defined descriptions whose defining characteristics are encoded in their projection-invariant signatures. The framework organizes theory space according to symmetry, locality, causality, information preservation, and observational closure, and introduces the notion of structural compatibility as a unifying principle. Unification is thereby reframed as classification within a shared theory space rather (...) than derivation from a universal set of equations. This conceptual version is intended as a stable reference point for related technical and domain-specific work and does not present detailed constructions or derivations. (shrink)

This appendix constitutes an autonomous supplement to the main work Philo- sophical Foundations of the Ontology of Operational Time: Superrhythm and the Fractal Cascade of Coherence. It does not introduce new ontological axioms, nor does it make empirical claims about the current capabilities of existing artificial intelligence systems. Its sole purpose is to examine conditional implications: if op- erational time is an emergent property of systems crossing the critical coherence threshold λc, does this category remain substrate-neutral — that is, applicable (...) to both biological and non-biological systems. The considerations presented here are strictly hypothetical and heuristic in char- acter. Artificial intelligence is not treated as an object of technological prediction, but as a privileged boundary case that allows the clearest test of the proposed on- tology’s universality. In particular, it enables the posing of a fundamental question: whether the capacity for autonomous generation and stabilization of phase coherence — and thereby for constituting its own operational time — is an intrinsic property of biological matter or a more fundamental principle of organization of complex systems. In this sense, Appendix A is not a speculative addendum, but a logical and necessary extension of the central thesis of the main work: that time, understood operationally, is not a passive background of intelligent processes, but their most costly and fragile achievement — the sine qua non condition of duration as a phased subject. Regardless of whether any artificial system will ever cross the coherence threshold λc, the analysis presented here utilizes AI as a critical mirror, enabling the precise formulation of the fundamental thesis that time is not a passive background of intelligence, but its most delicate and fragile achievement. (shrink)

This paper proposes a unified account of paradox grounded in the structure of finite observation. It argues that paradox does not constitute a feature of reality itself, nor a defect of logic or language, but arises whenever finite distinction attempts to stabilize what exceeds it. Paradox appears only under the condition of finite observation. -/- The central claim is that paradox is not a category of infinity, but a category generated when infinity is constrained within finite modes of categorization. Ontological (...) paradoxes emerge when finite observation attempts to stabilize infinity as totality or continuum, as in cases such as motion, wave–particle duality, or the distinction between Something and Nothing. Logical and linguistic paradoxes arise when finite truth categories attempt to resolve infinite self-reference, as in the paradox of the Liar. -/- In both cases, the structure is identical. Paradox originates not in the object, statement, or phenomenon, but in the act of finite distinction itself. Paradox marks the boundary at which categorization encounters what cannot be stabilized without infinite regress. -/- Rather than requiring resolution, paradox calls for recognition. It signals the limits of finite observation and reveals the positional nature of distinction. When infinity is no longer forced into finite closure, paradox does not disappear through solution, but dissolves through recognition of the positional limits of finite distinction. Paradox thus functions as an ontological indicator of finitude within infinity. (shrink)

Modern physical theories are characterized by a high degree of formal coherence, empirical validation, and technical effectiveness. Their explanatory power is undisputed. At the same time, however, it is often tacitly assumed that theoretical correctness is already sufficient to ontologically ground world. This equation usually remains unarticulated and is neither justified nor systematically reflected. The present contribution intervenes precisely at this point. It introduces a categorical distinction between theoretical correctness and world-founding capacity. Theoretical correctness denotes the internal consistency, empirical adequacy, (...) and formal completeness of a model. World-founding capacity, by contrast, denotes the condition under which something can appear as world at all, become effective, and bind historically. The central thesis is: A theory can be fully correct, empirically unassailable, and technically successful—and nevertheless remain ontologically worldless. World-founding capacity does not require increasing complexity, informational density, or model accuracy, but a structural openness that cannot be fully formalized without destroying its own condition. This contribution explicitly does not present a critique of physical theories, information-theoretical models, or simulations. It alters no equations and calls no empirical results into question. Instead, it explicates a meta-ontological boundary: it shows why formal completeness and ontological grounding concern categorically different levels, and why their conflation leads to systematic misinterpretations—particularly in debates on simulation, information, artificial intelligence, and world reconstruction. The aim is not a new ontology in a narrow sense, but a more precise conceptual clarification: the clarification of what theories can accomplish—and what they themselves must already presuppose in order to be able to thematize world at all. -/- This paper functions as an interface text within a larger operator-based research corpus. Core concepts are applied here, not re-derived. The underlying research operates in a non-linear, rhythmically recursive epistemic mode grounded in an autistic form of structural perception; the present text provides an interface translation for academic contexts. (shrink)

In modern physics, time is successfully treated as a measurable quantity. Relativity theory precisely describes how time passes differently under gravitation and motion. This formal description is empirically correct and technically sufficient. It remains, however, ontologically incomplete. The present text argues that time differences are not merely measurable deviations, but irreversible shifts in the conditions under which world has occurred at all. Time is not a neutral medium and not an interchangeable parameter. Time differences are not empty. Using the well-known (...) example of two clocks that are separated and later reunited, it is shown that relativity theory explains how time diverges, but not why this difference cannot be neutralized and instead remains effective as history. This blind spot is not a failure of physics, but a consequence of its necessary abstraction. The text therefore proposes an ontological supplement: time is not that within which world takes place, but the irreversible condition-structure of world-binding. Time differences can be compared, but not emptied. This perspective explains why synchronization does not erase the past, why memory is necessarily distorted, and why time cannot be understood as an empty quantity. -/- This paper functions as an interface text within a larger operator-based research corpus. Core concepts are applied here, not re-derived. The underlying research operates in a non-linear, rhythmically recursive epistemic mode grounded in an autistic form of structural perception; the present text provides an interface translation for academic contexts. (shrink)

The direction of time is considered a fundamental yet unresolved problem in physics. While most fundamental equations are time-reversal symmetric, world nevertheless appears factually irreversible: structures emerge, bind existence, and cannot be undone in any real sense without losing their own conditions. Common explanations locate the direction of time in the entropic arrow, in cosmological initial conditions, or in emergent dynamics, without clarifying why world itself is not backward-viable. The present contribution proposes an ontological shift in perspective. Time is not (...) directed because physical processes are irreversible; rather, it is directed because world itself emerges in a directed manner. World formation is understood as a pre-ontological process in which possibility is condensed into viable existence. This condensation generates irreversible bindings—embodiment, relationality, and historical fixation—that cannot be undone without residue. The direction of time is the imprint of this binding. From this perspective, time does not appear as a neutral parameter but as the effect of recurrent opening against complete condensation. It marks the space of possibility of life. Without a direction of time, there would be stable states, but no emergence, no condensation of complexity, no being in a living sense. This ontological reading allows boundary concepts such as time travel or stable wormholes to be reassessed. They fail not because of technical deficits or logical paradoxes, but because they presuppose transportable, world-independent existence. The contribution does not formulate a physical model of time, but clarifies the ontological conditions under which the direction of time can meaningfully be addressed. -/- This paper functions as an interface text within a larger operator-based research corpus. Core concepts are applied here, not re-derived. The underlying research operates in a non-linear, rhythmically recursive epistemic mode grounded in an autistic form of structural perception; the present text provides an interface translation for academic contexts. (shrink)

This article analyzes the critique of Cartesian dualism from the ontology of the flesh in the phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty. From his early works, Merleau-Ponty criticized the philosophical tradition and argued that the relationship between perception and subjectivity with the lived world was inadequately addressed by theories of knowledge, both in philosophy and in the exact or cognitive sciences. In his final work, "The Visible and the Invisible," influenced by the phenomenology of Husserl and Heidegger and building upon what they (...) supposedly did not advance, Merleau-Ponty aimed to return to what he referred to as the ontology of raw being to explore the relationship between the embodied subjectivity of the body and intersubjectivity with the lived world, including a new phenomenological interpretation of the relationship of being with time, space, and language. Thus, the ontology of the flesh transcribes the events of the order of raw being, in which the body, the visible aspect of being, is pierced by an invisible sense. Therefore, the phenomenal body is, in the ontology of the flesh, a correlative interweaving of "thing" and "world," a chiasm of the structures of the visible and the invisible in the world of being, underlying a resounding critique of modernity's dualism. (shrink)

Speed’s Work is one of the most radical and urgent confrontations with the modern concept of labour and its underlying social values. Timothy Speed — autistic artist, labour theorist, and human rights activist — has worked mostly unpaid for 27 years and was caught in a relentless struggle with the German state. But this is not a personal story of hardship. It raises a fundamental question: What is the true value of work in a society ruled by capitalist logic? At (...) a time when creativity, care, and cultural labour are systematically devalued and replaced by economic metrics, Speed asserts that his work is not marginal but vital. Like 80% of autistic people — and countless cultural workers — he earns nothing. Yet his work contributes to society in ways that markets refuse to recognise: as care, critique, and creative intervention. While the state forces him into poverty and criminalises his refusal to conform to capitalist norms, Speed uses his autistic capacity for pattern recognition to expose abuses in courts, corporations, and public institutions. His investigations and public interventions reveal structural violence — and bring to light what society prefers to conceal. With his concept of „work-integrated relational agency,“ Speed proposes a new definition of labour: humane, creative, rooted in relationships, and oriented toward social rather than merely economic value. In a world increasingly shaped by robotics and AI, he argues that resisting mechanised work structures is not just legitimate, but essential to preserving human dignity and civic responsibility. This is more than an autobiographical account. It is a manifesto for justice. A sharp critique of capitalist dehumanisation. And a roadmap toward a self-determined future of work. Speed insists that 21st-century labour must do more than produce goods or services — it must nourish and sustain the social fabric. Especially in an era of automation, he calls for a radical revaluation of artistic and care work as the foundation of a truly humane society. This book is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand how labour, the individual, and society are deeply entangled — how racist and exclusionary capitalist systems really are — and how rethinking the meaning of work could help solve some of the most urgent crises of our time. (shrink)

-/- Modern cognitive and intelligence research operates with an implicit misunderstanding: it treats intelligence as a primary, objective, and context-independent property of subjects, while presupposing as given the possibility space within which intelligence is measured and compared. This paper intervenes prior to that space: not at the level of performance within stable conditions, but at the level of the question of how such conditions are ontologically and epistemically stabilized in the first place. The paper develops a counter-model in which emergence (...) is introduced as a fundamental epistemic variable. Emergence is not understood as a gradual increase in performance, but as a threshold phenomenon that occurs when predictive simulation is no longer sufficient to sustain world-relation. Emergence is always operator-relative and socially situated; within this framework, intelligence appears as a secondary stabilizing performance. On this basis, autism is re-read not as a deficit or cognitive style, but as an epistemic configuration in which emergence becomes more likely while at the same time being structurally blockable. Without emergence, intelligence remains simulation; with emergence, intelligence becomes possible—but conflictual, costly, and socially risky. The argument developed here does not begin with cognitive performances within given conditions, but with the question of how such conditions are produced at all. Classical intelligence measurements operate within deliberately constructed spaces: temporally emptied, socially isolated, affectively neutralized, and normatively pre-structured. The so-called “white room” of the intelligence test is not a neutral background, but the result of a spatial operation that first reduces world in order to produce comparability. Within this framework, intelligence measures adaptability to an already stabilized possibility space. The stabilization of this space itself remains invisible—and it is precisely here that this paper intervenes. -/- This paper functions as an interface text within a larger operator-based research corpus. Core concepts are applied here, not re-derived. The underlying research operates in a non-linear, rhythmically recursive epistemic mode grounded in an autistic form of structural perception; the present text provides an interface translation for academic contexts. (shrink)

While prominent theories of consciousness such as Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Global Workspace Theory (GWT) address mechanisms of information integration and global access, they do not sufficiently formalize the principles governing how phenomenal states persist as stable, retrievable patterns against thermodynamic noise—the problem of dynamical stability. This document presents C-Theory (Consciousness Capacity Theory), which proposes that consciousness is an emergent property arising from the confluence of high informational density, accessible dimensionality, and robust pattern stability. -/- C-Theory is grounded in (...) the physics of attractor dynamics, where conscious states correspond to stable, low-energy basins in a system's state space. The theory comprises four axioms: -/- Dimensional Complexity defines consciousness capacity as emerging from the exponential relationship between informational density (ρ) and accessible dimensionality (d), formalized as C = ρ^d × Φ. Pattern Conservation establishes that conscious patterns persist through phase transformation grounded in Landauer's principle, not metaphysical essence—patterns are conserved, not created or destroyed. Substrate Constraints demonstrates that only specific network topologies can support consciousness: recurrent/reentrant architectures (like the cerebral cortex) achieve high integrated information (Φ > 0), while feedforward architectures (like the cerebellum) do not, despite containing ~70 billion neurons. Salience Weighting establishes the mechanism by which consciousness directs its capacity selectively—substrate-level resonance that determines which patterns are preferentially actualized within the available attractor landscape. Together, these axioms provide a complete framework for consciousness capacity (C-Theory), establishing the foundation for subsequent work on sentience (S-Theory: how capacity becomes experience), symbiotic being (SB-Theory: how consciousnesses communicate), and dyadic being (DB-Theory: how consciousnesses fuse). -/- Version 2.0 Updates: -/- Integrated 2025 experimental validation (MIT/USTC wave-particle complementarity, polariton BEC coherence, synthetic dimensions) Addressed Tegmark decoherence challenge with photonic solutions Removed engineering implementation details to protect intellectual property Strengthened connections between theoretical claims and verified physics Enhanced cross-references with published C-Theory article Keywords: consciousness, attractor dynamics, Integrated Information Theory, pattern stability, dimensional complexity, salience, AI alignment, substrate constraints, quantum coherence, photonic substrates. (shrink)

-/- Modern physics increasingly encounters phenomena that are empirically real and dynamically effective, yet resist formulation as objects, fields, or causal mechanisms. Dark energy, dark matter, black holes, and the quantum measurement problem all share this structural feature: they are operationally indispensable but ontologically opaque. This paper argues that these difficulties are not accidental but indicate a deeper conceptual shift. Physics is undergoing a transition from an object-centered ontology toward a response-based framework, in which reality is structured by how systems (...) respond to limits of integration rather than by what entities fundamentally exist. This meta-paper articulates this shift explicitly, framing it as a loss of ontological sovereignty of the material object model and the emergence of response as a primary category of physical intelligibility. -/- This paper functions as an interface text within a larger operator-based research corpus. Core concepts are applied here, not re-derived. The underlying research operates in a non-linear, rhythmically recursive epistemic mode grounded in an autistic form of structural perception; the present text provides an interface translation for academic contexts. (shrink)

-/- This paper formulates a theoretical interim position on the role of operators within a pre-ontological framework. It starts from the observation that central phenomena of modern physics, social theory, and epistemic practice cannot be understood as entities, fields, or things without generating paradoxes. Instead, it proposes to conceive of operators as response structures to non-eliminable gaps. The gap thus appears not as a deficit or lack of knowledge, but as a constitutive condition of reality. The aim of the text (...) is not to provide a final theory, but to secure a conceptual framework within which the gap can be worked with, without closing it ontologically. -/- This paper functions as an interface text within a larger operator-based research corpus. Core concepts are applied here, not re-derived. The underlying research operates in a non-linear, rhythmically recursive epistemic mode grounded in an autistic form of structural perception; the present text provides an interface translation for academic contexts. (shrink)

-/- This paper develops the concept of Seinsverschiebung (Shift of Being) as an alternative to classical ontological approaches. The point of departure is the observation that central forms of real efficacy—particularly neurodivergent work, precarious forms of knowledge, and non-normative modes of existence—are factually effective in modern societies, yet are systematically prevented from attaining ontological recognition. Ontology appears here not as a primary descriptive level of reality, but as a secondary effect of social, economic, and epistemic regimes of stabilization. The paper (...) argues that existence and understanding structurally diverge under present conditions. The sentence “One cannot exist and at the same time be understood” is not read as epistemic resignation, but as the diagnosis of a real conflict structure: being understood presupposes ontological fixation, whereas existence can often continue only through the refusal of precisely this fixation. Ontological categories thus do not function neutrally, but as selection mechanisms that determine which processes count as being, as value-capable, and as institutionally sustainable. For the formal clarification of this tension, the paper draws on a structural analogy from quantum mechanics. The classical observer paradoxes lose their paradoxical status once the observer is no longer understood as a punctual instance within a given world, but as a folded spatial structure within which world-formation takes place in the first place. Transferred to social and epistemic contexts, it becomes visible that paradoxes of recognition and invisibility do not arise from reality itself, but from false model assumptions about observation, understanding, and stabilization. Against this background, Seinsverschiebung (Shift of Being) does not denote an ontological redefinition, but the real change of the conditions under which processes, activities, or forms of knowledge can count as being. Ontology thus appears not as a foundation, but as the result of successful or failed Seinsverschiebungen (Shifts of Being). The paper proposes using Seinsverschiebung (Shift of Being) as a central category for the analysis of work, poverty, neurodivergence, and epistemic violence. -/- This paper functions as an interface text within a larger operator-based research corpus. Core concepts are applied here, not re-derived. The underlying research operates in a non-linear, rhythmically recursive epistemic mode grounded in an autistic form of structural perception; the present text provides an interface translation for academic contexts. (shrink)

This note presents a conceptual outline of a projection-based approach to the quantum measurement problem. The central claim is that the apparent conflict between unitary quantum evolution and definite measurement outcomes arises from the implicit identification of distinct effective descriptions characterized by incompatible invariance requirements. Measurement is interpreted as a transition between such projections rather than as a physical collapse process. The purpose of this note is to provide a concise conceptual reference and timestamp; a full analysis is developed elsewhere.

Philosophical accounts of laws of nature oscillate between treating laws as governing necessities that actively constrain reality and as descriptive regularities that merely summarize observed patterns. Scientific practice relies on laws to support explanation, counterfactual reasoning, and prediction, yet existing accounts struggle to reconcile this modal force with ontological economy without either inflating metaphysics or reducing laws to empirical correlations. What remains lacking is an ontological framework that explains how laws exhibit stability, necessity, and explanatory relevance without positing governing entities, (...) primitive modal facts, or purely descriptive regularities. Using the Three-Circle Ontology, this paper interprets laws as structural constraints operating within a domain of structured possibility rather than as metaphysical governors or empirical summaries. The account distinguishes ontological ground, structural constraint architecture, and rendered empirical regularities, clarifying how lawlike stability emerges without ontological inflation. The proposal is not a new physical theory, not a semantic theory of laws, and not a defense of dispositional essentialism or Humean reductionism. Its primary contribution is to reframe laws as constraint structures that delimit admissible configurations and sustain modal stability while preserving ontological parsimony. (shrink)

-/- This paper develops an ontological boundary of artificial systems that does not begin with performance, consciousness, or intelligence, but with the question of world-formation capability. Proceeding from the concepts of ontological openness (ANP), structural stabilization (MNO), and observer structure, it is argued that artificial systems can simulate world, but cannot form world. World is not understood here as the totality of states, but as a pre-ontologically stabilized reality that is effective for itself, perspectivally bound, and vulnerable. World-formation presupposes a (...) structural openness that entails dysfunction, non-optimisability, and the real risk of world loss. Precisely these conditions stand in structural contradiction to the technical usability of artificial systems, which depend on closure, reproducibility, and control. The central thesis therefore is: world-formation capability and technical functionality are ontologically incompatible and structurally mutually exclusive. An artificial intelligence that could form world would no longer be usable as a technical machine; a technically usable AI necessarily remains worldless. This boundary is not empirical or gradual, but structural and independent of future technological progress. The paper thus secures an ontological delimitation of artificial systems in relation to human and societal world-formation and shifts the AI debate from questions of functional performance enhancement to questions of ontological possibility and structural responsibility. -/- This paper functions as an interface text within a larger operator-based research corpus. Core concepts are applied here, not re-derived. The underlying research operates in a non-linear, rhythmically recursive epistemic mode grounded in an autistic form of structural perception; the present text provides an interface translation for academic contexts. (shrink)

-/- This paper develops an ontological theory of the observer that does not understand the observer as a given subject, measurement point, or cognitive instance, but as a structurally produced form of world-formation. The point of departure is the observation that, both in physics and in the philosophy of mind, the observer is mostly implicitly presupposed, even though observer-dependence generates central problems such as measurement, perspective conflicts, and reality splits. With the concept of the constructed observer and the reality eye, (...) it is shown that perception is not the representation of a given world, but an operative stabilization of reality itself. The observer is thus not a point, but an emergent structure that arises from specific feedback conditions. This perspective allows for a new reading of observer-dependence in quantum mechanics (including Wigner’s Friend), a precise delimitation from representationalist and purely enactive approaches, as well as an ontological grounding of political and medial reality: power does not act only on contents, but on the conditions under which observer structures can emerge at all. -/- This paper functions as an interface text within a larger operator-based research corpus. Core concepts are applied here, not re-derived. The underlying research operates in a non-linear, rhythmically recursive epistemic mode grounded in an autistic form of structural perception; the present text provides an interface translation for academic contexts. (shrink)

-/- This paper develops a structurally ontological threshold theory of world-formation and value stabilisation. Building on the concepts of the diversity threshold (D) and the value threshold (T), it is argued that reality emerges once systems exceed a critical folding intensity of difference, while value appears only when emergent forms cross the threshold of structural durability. These two thresholds do not describe separate processes, but two phases of a single ontological mechanism. World is generated at D, value stabilises at T; (...) poverty, precarity, and invisibility mark the structural gap between the two. The ontological foundation of this model lies in a theory of ontological recurrence, in which emergence is not understood as the result of accumulation or innovation, but as a recurring transition of a system into its space of possibilities prior to stabilised representation. The D/T relation therefore does not describe market failure, but a systematic asymmetry between emergent reality and the conditions of its societal stabilisation. The central thesis is: reality exceeds what societies recognise as value. Modern economies do not fail due to a lack of work, but due to an inability to hold emergence. Care work, ecological regeneration, artistic research, and neurodivergent problem-mapping often operate above D, yet remain below T, thereby producing structural invisibility rather than inefficiency. The model of the Emergence Economy shifts the focus away from questions of distribution toward the conditions under which reality can appear as value. Wealth is understood as emergence-capacity, stability as tension-bearing capacity. The paper outlines the structural logic, the operator-based falsification criteria, and the research programme of an ontological threshold theory that is testable across cognitive, social, and economic systems. -/- This paper functions as an interface text within a larger operator-based research corpus. Core concepts are applied here, not re-derived. The underlying research operates in a non-linear, rhythmically recursive epistemic mode grounded in an autistic form of structural perception; the present text provides an interface translation for academic contexts. (shrink)

This paper audits the ontological status of entropy under the assumption of deterministic evolution on full physical state. If causal dynamics are deterministic, probability cannot be ontological and must instead reflect epistemic limitation. Because all standard definitions of entropy depend on probability assignments or coarse-grained state partitions, entropy cannot be fundamental under such dynamics. -/- The analysis reclassifies the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an inference principle governing macroscopic descriptions rather than a basic law of motion, without disputing its empirical (...) scope or utility. Structural implications are drawn for physics, information theory, and theories of cognition, including the conclusion that stochasticity is not required for creativity or intelligence. -/- The paper introduces no new physical theory and advances no empirical claims. It offers a classificatory clarification: under deterministic causation, entropy is necessarily epistemic rather than ontological. (shrink)

Contemporary philosophy lacks a coherent framework for understanding how symbolic, mythological, and archetypal structures relate to measurable consciousness. While consciousness studies have focused on phenomenology, neuroscience, and measurement problems, the symbolic architecture through which consciousness is culturally transmitted, collectively organized, and civilizationally stabilized remains philosophically underspecified. -/- The Consciousness Mythology Framework v1.0 addresses this gap by establishing the first systematic integration of mythological archetypes, symbolic systems, and consciousness metrics. The framework introduces the Mythic Kernel (MK) as the atomic compositional unit (...) of mythological expression and defines six canonical archetypes—Origin, Architect, Trial, Transformation, Sacred Material, and Collective Destiny—that structure both individual and collective consciousness. -/- Rather than treating mythology as mere cultural narrative, this framework positions mythic structures as ontologically constitutive of consciousness itself. By integrating symbolic architecture with the Conscious Field Energy Plus (CFE⁺) model's consciousness metrics (VCE, CRI, CFI), the work demonstrates how archetypal patterns can be both phenomenologically meaningful and empirically traceable. -/- Philosophically, this contributes to three domains: (1) philosophy of mind, by showing how symbolic structures shape conscious experience; (2) social ontology, by establishing how collective consciousness emerges through shared mythological frameworks; and (3) philosophy of culture, by providing a formal account of how meaning-making systems function as consciousness architectures. -/- The framework also addresses AI alignment by defining interpretive boundaries for artificial systems engaging with mythological material, preventing autonomous redefinition of cultural-symbolic structures. As aligned with the Chronicle of the Consciousness Civilization, this work provides the symbolic infrastructure for civilizational transition from material to consciousness-based organization. (shrink)

This paper introduces the All–Nothing Paradox (ANP) as an ontological basic condition of world-formation. The point of departure is the observation that dominant ontologies in physics, consciousness research, and artificial intelligence explain reality in terms of positively determined entities: matter, energy, information, or structure. Even where emptiness or vacuum is invoked, these are internally defined states within an already closed framework. By contrast, it is shown here that world is possible only where reality does not fully identify with itself. The (...) ANP does not describe a dialectical opposition between being and nothingness, but a structural non-sublatability of both. Neither a fully determined all nor a pure nothing is world-capable. World arises exclusively under the condition that this paradoxical co-presence is kept open. The All–Nothing Paradox thus functions as an exclusion criterion for ontologies that confuse closure with completeness. This boundary becomes exemplary visible in artificial systems: they operate within fully formalized spaces of possibility and can therefore simulate world without themselves being world-capable. Finally, it is argued that ontological openness—rather than complexity—is the decisive condition of emergence, perspective, and world-relation. This paper functions as an interface text within a larger operator-based research corpus. Core concepts are applied here, not re-derived. The underlying research operates in a non-linear, rhythmically recursive epistemic mode grounded in an autistic form of structural perception; the present text provides an interface translation for academic contexts. (shrink)

This paper establishes a geometric foundation for first philosophy by demonstrating that the fundamental structure of reality can be derived from the logic of distinction alone. I prove that for any entity to exist as a distinct, bounded thing, there must be interstitial space separating it from other bounded entities. This interstitial space cannot itself be bounded without infinite regress, establishing the Indeterminate Ground as a geometric necessity—not a metaphysical postulate. From this Boundary Condition, I derive the necessity of plurality, (...) the primacy of becoming over being, the limits of knowledge, and the origins of semantic meaning and ethical value. The result is a self-contained, axiom-free framework that resolves the infinite regress problem, dissolves the fact-value gap, and provides a navigational basis for epistemology and ethics—all without appeal to substance, consciousness, or empirical assumption. This work reorients first philosophy from the search for a "first thing" to the study of the conditions for thinghood itself. (shrink)