The file on this site provides the slides for a lecture given in Hangzhou in May 2018, and the lecture itself is available at the URL beginning 'sms' in the set of links provided in connection with this item. It is commonly assumed that regular physics underpins biology. Here it is proposed, in a synthesis of ideas by various authors, that in reality structures and mechanisms of a biological character underpin the world studied by physicists, in principle supplying detail in the domain that according to regular physics is of an indeterminate character. In regular physics mathematical equations are primary, but this constraint leads to problems with reconciling theory and reality. Biology on the other hand typically does not characterise nature in quantitative terms, instead investigating in detail important complex interrelationships between parts, leading to an understanding of the systems concerned that is in some respects beyond that which prevails in regular physics. It makes contact with quantum physics in various ways, for example in that both involve interactions between observer and observed, an insight that explains what is special about processes involving observation, justifying in the quantum physics context the replacement of the unphysical many-worlds picture by one involving collapse. The link with biology furthermore clarifies Wheeler’s suggestion that a multiplicity of observations can lead to the ‘fabrication of form’, including the insight that this process depends on very specific ‘structures with power’ related to the 'semiotic scaffolding' of the application of sign theory to biology known as biosemiotics. The observer-observed 'circle' of Wheeler and Yardley is a special case of a more general phenomenon, oppositional dynamics, related to the 'intra-action' of Barad's Agential Realism, involving cooperating systems such as mind and matter, abstract and concrete, observer and observed, that preserve their identities while interacting with one another in such a way as to act as a unit. A third system may also be involved, the mediating system of Peirce linking the two together. Such a situation of changing connections and separations may plausibly lead in the future to an understanding of how complex systems are able to evolve to produce 'life, the universe and everything'. (Added 1 July 2018) The general structure proposed here as an alternative to a mathematics-based physics can be usefully characterised by relating it to different disciplines and the specialised concepts utilised therein. In theoretical physics, the test for the correctness of a theory typically involves numerical predictions, corresponding to which theories are expressed in terms of equations, that is to say assertions that two quantities have identical values. Equations have a lesser significance in biology which typically talks in terms of functional mechanisms, dependent for example on details of chemistry and concepts such as genes, natural selection, signals and geometrical or topologically motivated concepts such as the interconnections between systems and the unfolding of DNA. Biosemiotics adds to this the concept of signs and their interpretation, implying novel concepts such as semiotic scaffolding and the semiosphere, code duality, and appreciation of the different types of signs, including symbols and their capacity for abstraction and use in language systems. Circular Theory adds to this picture, as do the ideas of Barad, considerations such as the idea of oppositional dynamics. The proposals in this lecture can be regarded as the idea that concepts such as those deriving from biosemiotics have more general applicability than just conventional biology and may apply, in some circumstances, to nonlinear systems generally, including the domain new to science hypothesised to underlie the phenomena of present-day physics. The task then has to be to restore the mathematical aspect presumed, in this picture, not to be fundamental as it is in conventional theory. Deacon has invoked a complex sequence of evolutionary steps to account for the emergence over time of human language systems, and correspondingly mathematical behaviour can be subsumed under the general evolutionary mechanisms of biosemiotics (cf. also the proposals of Davis and Hersh regarding the nature of mathematics), so that the mathematical behaviour of physical systems is consistent with the proposed scheme. In conclusion, it is suggested that theoretical physicists should cease expecting to find some universal mathematical ‘theory of everything’, and focus instead on understanding in more detail complex systems exhibiting behaviour of a biological character, extending existing understanding. This may in time provide a more fruitful understanding of the natural world than does the regular approach. The essential concepts have an observational basis from both biology and the little-known discipline of cymatics (a discipline concerned with the remarkable patterns that specific waveforms can give rise to), while again computer simulations also offer promise in providing insight into the complex behaviours involved in the above proposals. References Jesper Hoffmeyer, Semiotic Scaffolding of Living Systems. Commens, a Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce (on Commens web site). Terrence Deacon, The Symbolic Species, W.W. Norton & Co. Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Duke University Press. Philip Davis and Reuben Hersh, The Mathematical Experience, Penguin. Ilexa Yardley, Circular Theory.
The file on this site provides the slides for a lecture given in Hangzhou in May 2018, and the lecture itself is available at the URL beginning 'sms' in the set of links provided in connection with this item. It is commonly assumed that regular physics underpins biology. Here it is proposed, in a synthesis of ideas by various authors, that in reality structures and mechanisms of a biological character underpin the world studied by physicists, in principle supplying detail in the domain that according to regular physics is of an indeterminate character. In regular physics mathematical equations are primary, but this constraint leads to problems with reconciling theory and reality. Biology on the other hand typically does not characterise nature in quantitative terms, instead investigating in detail important complex interrelationships between parts, leading to an understanding of the systems concerned that is in some respects beyond that which prevails in regular physics. It makes contact with quantum physics in various ways, for example in that both involve interactions between observer and observed, an insight that explains what is special about processes involving observation, justifying in the quantum physics context the replacement of the unphysical many-worlds picture by one involving collapse. The link with biology furthermore clarifies Wheeler’s suggestion that a multiplicity of observations can lead to the ‘fabrication of form’, including the insight that this process depends on very specific ‘structures with power’ related to the 'semiotic scaffolding' of the application of sign theory to biology known as biosemiotics. The observer-observed 'circle' of Wheeler and Yardley is a special case of a more general phenomenon, oppositional dynamics, related to the 'intra-action' of Barad's Agential Realism, involving cooperating systems such as mind and matter, abstract and concrete, observer and observed, that preserve their identities while interacting with one another in such a way as to act as a unit. A third system may also be involved, the mediating system of Peirce linking the two together. Such a situation of changing connections and separations may plausibly lead in the future to an understanding of how complex systems are able to evolve to produce 'life, the universe and everything'. (Added 1 July 2018) The general structure proposed here as an alternative to a mathematics-based physics can be usefully characterised by relating it to different disciplines and the specialised concepts utilised therein. In theoretical physics, the test for the correctness of a theory typically involves numerical predictions, corresponding to which theories are expressed in terms of equations, that is to say assertions that two quantities have identical values. Equations have a lesser significance in biology which typically talks in terms of functional mechanisms, dependent for example on details of chemistry and concepts such as genes, natural selection, signals and geometrical or topologically motivated concepts such as the interconnections between systems and the unfolding of DNA. Biosemiotics adds to this the concept of signs and their interpretation, implying novel concepts such as semiotic scaffolding and the semiosphere, code duality, and appreciation of the different types of signs, including symbols and their capacity for abstraction and use in language systems. Circular Theory adds to this picture, as do the ideas of Barad, considerations such as the idea of oppositional dynamics. The proposals in this lecture can be regarded as the idea that concepts such as those deriving from biosemiotics have more general applicability than just conventional biology and may apply, in some circumstances, to nonlinear systems generally, including the domain new to science hypothesised to underlie the phenomena of present-day physics. The task then has to be to restore the mathematical aspect presumed, in this picture, not to be fundamental as it is in conventional theory. Deacon has invoked a complex sequence of evolutionary steps to account for the emergence over time of human language systems, and correspondingly mathematical behaviour can be subsumed under the general evolutionary mechanisms of biosemiotics (cf. also the proposals of Davis and Hersh regarding the nature of mathematics), so that the mathematical behaviour of physical systems is consistent with the proposed scheme. In conclusion, it is suggested that theoretical physicists should cease expecting to find some universal mathematical ‘theory of everything’, and focus instead on understanding in more detail complex systems exhibiting behaviour of a biological character, extending existing understanding. This may in time provide a more fruitful understanding of the natural world than does the regular approach. The essential concepts have an observational basis from both biology and the little-known discipline of cymatics (a discipline concerned with the remarkable patterns that specific waveforms can give rise to), while again computer simulations also offer promise in providing insight into the complex behaviours involved in the above proposals. References Jesper Hoffmeyer, Semiotic Scaffolding of Living Systems. Commens, a Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce (on Commens web site). Terrence Deacon, The Symbolic Species, W.W. Norton & Co. Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Duke University Press. Philip Davis and Reuben Hersh, The Mathematical Experience, Penguin. Ilexa Yardley, Circular Theory.
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
Abstract Quantum mechanics is our most successful and versatile account of the basic constituents of matter, of their interaction and of their compounds. We introduce the theory via a sketch of its history and lay out its mathematical structure in some detail. Before this background we address the important and controversial question of how to interpret that structure. We contextualise our own position, which is linked to our account of ontological emergence as detailed in Chap. 2 , and which is mathematically best expressed in the Heisenberg picture of quantum dynamics. Indeterminism and irreversible processes are fundamental for our approach. We discuss the dialectics of the deterministic challenge to our position and argue that indeterminism in the form of quantum randomness has turned from a philosophical riddle to a technological resource. This claim is supported by a discussion of quantum information science, including some of its basic protocols. Towards the end of the chapter we argue that agency and quantum mechanics come as a package deal. For one, quantum mechanics describes the world as offering open possibilities for the future at a fundamental physical level, which is needed for real higher-order organisation, including agency. Of course, this does not in any way show that the actual existence of agents in our world is guaranteed. But it does show that general agency scepticism has no basis in physics. Second, we show that quantum mechanics is best understood as a theory that describes our agential interactions with nature, and not as a theory that represents nature from the point of view of an inert, detached observer.
Quantum physics and biology have long been regarded as unrelated disciplines, describing nature at the inanimate microlevel on the one hand and living species on the other hand. Over the past decades the life sciences have succeeded in providing ever more and refined explanations of macroscopic phenomena that were based on an improved understanding of molecular structures and mechanisms. Simultaneously, quantum physics, originally rooted in a world-view of quantum coherences, entanglement, and other nonclassical effects, has been heading toward systems of increasing complexity. The present perspective article shall serve as a "pedestrian guide" to the growing interconnections between the two fields. We recapitulate the generic and sometimes unintuitive characteristics of quantum physics and point to a number of applications in the life sciences. We discuss our criteria for a future "quantum biology," its current status, recent experimental progress, and also the restrictions that nature imposes on bold extrapolations of quantum theory to macroscopic phenomena.
Along with weaving together observations, experiments, and theoretical constructs into a coherent mesh of understanding of the world around us, physics over its past five centuries has continuously refined the base concepts on which the whole framework is built. In quantum physics, first in non-relativistic mechanics and later in quantum field theories, even familiar concepts of position, momentum, wave or particle, are derived constructs from the classical limit in which we live but not intrinsic to the underlying physics. Most crucially, the very idea of the individual, whether an object or an event, distinguished only in a mere label of identity from others identical to it in all the physics, exists only as an approximation, not an element of underlying reality. Failure to recognize this and seeking alternative explanations in many worlds or multiverses leads only to incoherent logic and incorrect physics. As an example, in a physical system such as an atom in a particular state, physics deals with the universal system of all such atoms but makes no meaningful prediction of the position of an electron or the time of decay of any specific atom. Those are incidental, entirely random among all possible positions and times, even while physics makes very precise predictions for the distribution of the outcomes in measurements on atoms in that state. Physics deals with the universal, not the individual.
Connection is fundamental to understanding our world. Everything is expressed through connections; an object (matter) is a self-connection in the form of energy closed in on itself; all forms of energy are forms of connection, information, thoughts are forms of connection, in particular, Vernadsky's noosphere is an example of this, and so on. We proceed through connections, then through connection structures. Connections are energy. Connections are more comprehensive than energy, which is a special case of a connection; an object is a special case of energy. That is, dynamic science is more comprehensive than traditional science due to its more general foundations. The format-number defines the hierarchy structure of interpretations, energies, actions, process etc. Digitization of interpretations forms by format-numbers allows the use of digital technologies through appropriate programming. Format-number (2(1, 2, 1), (1, 2, 1)) characterizes the transition of quantum numbers through the tensor product to entanglement. Of course, (1, 2)-interpretation and (2, 1)-interpretation are simplifications; in reality, reality is much more complex. Quantum computers are just the beginning; our dynamic science constructs corresponding pseudo-living energies to achieve desired goals through network SmnSprt. In science, there are two approaches to studying nature beyond classical science (conditionally, the (1, 1)-interpretation): the approach through quantum mechanics (conditionally, the (1, 2)-interpretation: (1, 2) ((2, 1)) = (1, 1)) and dynamic mathematics (conditionally, the (2, 1)-interpretation) [1, 2]. In contrast to the probabilistic approach of quantum mechanics with dimension doubling for quantum entanglement, we propose a deterministic approach via an energy hierarchy. Both approaches have the same "root": |||, but at two opposite ends: quantum mechanics ((1, 2)-interpretation) by |||^{-1}by and dynamic mathematics (2, 1)-interpretation) by ||| and ((1, 2)-interpretation) by |||^{-1} and other interpretations with using hierarchical structures of measures, some equations [1, 2]. Therefore, the conclusions are similar, but for different objects and processes. Either we take what we need from emptiness by |||^{-1} or through substitution by |||. We also demonstrate the possibilities of not only using the effects of quantum entanglement for calculations, but also for manipulating energies, objects, their actions, and processes through the upper level. Let us call the interpretation formats by format-numbers and quantum levels of connections. Elements of format-numbers mathematics were considered partially [1, 2]. And for manipulating these numbers, the interpretation (1, 1) is already suitable, i.e., ordinary traditional science is suitable. This is a different approach to complex processes, not through probability. The format-number of connecting traditional science with our dynamic science is ((1,2), (2, 1), 1) ((1,2) ((1, 1))). (2, 1)3/2 is the format-number for spirit. ((1,2),(2,1),1)((1,2) ((1, 1) A)) ⱯA is a bridge for the transition from our dynamic science to traditional science and vice versa. For now, this is only an introductory article. The first task: to understand hierarchy of energies in the Universe and the principles of functioning of living energy (living organism, in particular, human, subtle energies), and then using these principles to "construct" artificial living energies (let's call them pseudo-living energies). It is possible to significantly expand the horizons of science, in particular physics, by studying the subtle energies in the Universe. Here is studying Energy-space with scalar product and norm of its elements by format-numbers. For this, some aspects are proposed for consideration of Dynamic Science. \mathrm{sel}{\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{science}}^{\mathrm{our}\ \mathrm{theory}} - science here acts as a space for the application of our theory in the self-format, i.e., any place of science, in particular physics, can act as a place for the "location" of the self. It contains itself (accommodates any action C) in any place of science. On the basis of mathematical uncertainties, new mathematical structures are formed, allowing us to describe processes and objects that are fundamentally not determined by conventional deterministic methods. Objective uncertainties in any case can mean manifestations of processes and objects that are fundamentally not determined by conventional deterministic methods. Since dynamic mathematics places the primary emphasis on the dynamics of energy, rather than on objectivity, the level of approach to studying processes expands. Many energies are indeterminate because they are based on uncertainties from the perspective of traditional science—large concentrations of specific energy in a chaotic state. The foundation of dynamic mathematics lies in working with uncertainties, which makes it possible to manipulate these indeterminate energies using direct-accumulative direct-parallel neural networks. Ordinary regular work with them in ordinary science is fundamentally unable to realize their capabilities. Therefore, singular science realized on a neural network - an analogue of the human CNS - will be much more natural. Quantum computers are just the beginning; our dynamic science constructs corresponding pseudo-living energies to achieve desired goals through network SmnSprt. SmnSprt must use format numbers to construct subtle energies, or rather, to access their levels (transform or "shift" ordinary energy into subtle energies, or "shift"). It's clear that the physical part of SmnSprt cannot exist in other worlds except for those close to our world or those whose parts intersect with our world. Unfortunately, we do not have funding to perform the necessary experiments and the practical creation of a technical model of such a neural network. There is a need to develop an instrumental mathematical base for new technologies. The task of the work is to create new approaches for this by introducing new concepts and methods. Our mathematics is unusual for a mathematician, because here the fulcrum is the action, and not the result of the action as in classical mathematics. Therefore, our mathematics is adapted not only to obtain results, but also to directly control actions, which will certainly show its benefits on a fundamentally new type of neural networks with directly parallel calculations, for which it was created. Any action has much greater potential than its result. Social justice is fundamentally impossible as long as education (training) is based on achieving results, and not on the process. It is time for physicists to begin studying not only the manifestations of living energies, but also the living energies themselves, which are by no means expressed through objectivity and ordinary energies, although they are capable of manifesting themselves through a lower level - objectivity and ordinary energies. We, as mathematicians, offer a new corresponding apparatus for understanding nature and studying living energies. Significance of the article: in a new qualitatively different approach to the study of complex processes through new mathematical, hierarchical, dynamic structures, in particular those processes that are dealt with by Synergetics. The significance of our article is in the formation of the presumptive mathematical structure of subtle energies, this is being done for the first time in science, and the presumptive classification of the mathematical structures of subtle energies for the first time. The experiments of the 2022 Nobel laureates Asle Ahlen, John Clauser, Anton Zeilinger and the experiments in chemistry Nazhipa Valitov eloquently demonstrate that we are right and that these studies are necessary. Be that as it may, we created classes of new mathematical structures, new mathematical singularities, i.e., made a contribution to the development of mathematics. Conventional science changes numbers. Ours changes levels by SmnSprt.
Summary: Why does reality remain stable?Physics successfully describes how systems evolve, yet a more fundamental question remains largely unexplored: why do stable structures exist at all?Why does one informational configuration become a persistent physical object while countless alternative possibilities never stabilize? This paper proposes a common stabilization mechanism underlying quantum decoherence, Fourier analysis, machine learning, recursive systems, biological regulation, logical exclusion and language. This work may be of interest to researchers in: quantum foundations information theory complex systems logic computational physics machine learning philosophy of physics This manuscript develops the NNO operator step by step, examines its structural parallels across multiple disciplines, and discusses its implications for observer-relative reality, antimatter, and quantum spin. Description: The NNO Stabilization Operator This paper introduces the NNO operator (Negation–Negation–Oscillation), a minimal conceptual mechanism describing how informational configurations become stable and persistent through observation. Its central idea is straightforward: reality does not emerge simply because information accumulates. It emerges because informational configurations repeatedly survive confrontation with incompatible alternatives relative to the observer. Any direct interaction introduces orientation and polarity, which in turn generate a conjugate alternative. A single negation leaves an active ambiguity relative to the informational evolution of an observer. Stabilization therefore requires two inseparable and complementary mechanisms combined into one conceptual operator: Double Negation — a two-step exclusion process requiring a configuration to remain coherent after confrontation with its logical inverse and that of the observer. Oscillation — phase alternation that progressively removes dependence on origin, scale, and monotonic accumulation, leaving only phase-invariant informational structures. Within this framework, stable reality corresponds to informational patterns that remain invariant under repeated exclusion and phase alternation relative to an observer, validating informational structures across successive observations rather than merely selecting a local configuration. Background Although developed independently, remarkably similar stabilization processes appear throughout science and mathematics. Examples include: quantum decoherence and phase scrambling signal processing and Fourier phase integration renormalization and universality logical systems based on exclusion (NAND, NOR, intuitionistic logic) machine learning optimization, convergence and loss-driven exclusion recursive dynamical systems and fractal invariants biological regulation through oscillatory turnover and selective instability semantic stabilization in language and cognition Despite their different formalisms, all of these mechanisms progressively eliminate unstable possibilities until only robust, observer-relative structures remain.This work argues that these apparently unrelated phenomena may represent different manifestations of the same underlying informational principle. Main implications Within this framework, the NNO operator provides an informational interpretation of: observer-relative reality quantum decoherence phase-dependent emergence and stabilization of physical structures phase invariance exclusion-based stabilization persistence of informational structures A companion paper extends these ideas to quantum spin and phase-dependent observer effects. The paper further examines orientation-reversed invariants as a necessary boundary case for any stabilization operator, showing that NNO stabilization remains valid under inverted informational orientation. Within this perspective, antimatter can be described as the stabilization of the same informational structure under inverted orientation. This proposition is consistent with CPT symmetry and the Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation, without invoking literal backward time propagation. Scope of this work This article is intentionally conceptual. It does not propose a new mathematical formalism or seek to replace established physical theories. Instead, it identifies a minimal stabilization mechanism that appears implicitly across numerous successful theoretical frameworks and proposes a unified informational interpretation of their common logic. The objective is to provide a conceptual foundation for future: mathematical formalization computational modeling independent verification cross-disciplinary investigation As such, the author welcomes constructive discussion, independent verification, mathematical formalization, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Relation to other work This publication constitutes the second major conceptual component of the Universal Theory of Information (TUI) research program. The current sequence consists of: The Universal Theory of Information (TUI): Emergence of Physics from Informational DynamicsInformational foundations of space, time, mass, gravity, and physical reality. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15106945 The NNO OperatorStabilization of informational structures through double negation and oscillation. Spin as a Signature of Information ExclusionInformational interpretation of quantum spin and observer-dependent phase stabilization. (Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18443042 This paper can be read independently, but reaches its full coherence when considered as part of the TUI–NNO–SPIN conceptual sequence.Together, these works propose a unified informational framework in which physical reality emerges from discrete informational interactions, while stable structures arise through recursive stabilization rather than accumulation alone. About the author Mathieu Valentin Rondet is an independent researcher investigating the informational foundations of physical reality through the Universal Theory of Information (TUI) research program. He holds two master's degrees in molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics, and biochemistry, completed in France and the United States. His academic background is complemented by more than twenty years of professional experience developing physically based simulations, procedural systems, and complex dynamic environments for the visual effects industry. His research combines concepts from information theory, complex systems, computational modeling, logic, and physics to investigate observer-relative informational structures and the emergence of stable physical phenomena. If the proposed stabilization mechanism does capture a genuine cross-domain invariant, it could provide a common conceptual foundation linking informational persistence across logic, computation, biology, and fundamental physics.