The article proposes an ontological language in which time, information, and the observer are defined as structures of difference, rather than as substances. The model belongs to the tradition of relational and processual approaches in the philosophy of physics — relational quantum mechanics (Carlo Rovelli), QBism (Christopher Fuchs), process philosophy (Alfred North Whitehead), and information theory (Gregory Bateson) — and offers a unified terminological synthesis of this tradition. Segmentation of statements by epistemic status: each substantive paragraph in Sections 4–7 is tagged: [Language] — a metaphor or instrument of description, not a physical statement. [Re-description] — a new way of speaking about an already known fact, without new explanation. [Hypothesis] — a statement admitting verification; where possible, the method is indicated. [Fact] — relies on a generally accepted, reproducible scientific result. The article does not claim to solve open problems in physics (the Hubble constant discrepancy, the nature of dark matter, the origin of early supermassive black holes). The applications presented in Section 4 are partly re-descriptions of already known facts in a new vocabulary, and partly testable hypotheses. The terms «multiverse» and «absolute» are used in an ontological sense — as a space of potential interpretations and the limit of applicability of language — and not as cosmological or physical entities. The only part of the model admitting direct verification already now is Section 5.4, which proposes a protocol for comparing the responses of language models with and without an ontological framework. The conducted experiment (N=10 responses (5 questions × 2 modes) from Claude, with control measurements on Kimi, DeepSeek, and Grok) shows that the use of an ontological core increases the ontological consistency (Ontological Consistency Score, OCS) of responses by an average of 36.7% compared to baseline indicators (from 18.0 to 24.6 points out of 25 possible). This is the first empirical result confirming the practical value of the proposed ontological language as a tool of prompt engineering. The application of this language to the problem of superintelligence safety is presented in a separate work by the author (Arslanova, 2026b). Keywords: ontology of information, observer, difference, large language models (LLMs), symbol grounding, quantum decoherence, prompt engineering, ontological consistency.
The article proposes an ontological language in which time, information, and the observer are defined as structures of difference, rather than as substances. The model belongs to the tradition of relational and processual approaches in the philosophy of physics — relational quantum mechanics (Carlo Rovelli), QBism (Christopher Fuchs), process philosophy (Alfred North Whitehead), and information theory (Gregory Bateson) — and offers a unified terminological synthesis of this tradition. Segmentation of statements by epistemic status: each substantive paragraph in Sections 4–7 is tagged: [Language] — a metaphor or instrument of description, not a physical statement. [Re-description] — a new way of speaking about an already known fact, without new explanation. [Hypothesis] — a statement admitting verification; where possible, the method is indicated. [Fact] — relies on a generally accepted, reproducible scientific result. The article does not claim to solve open problems in physics (the Hubble constant discrepancy, the nature of dark matter, the origin of early supermassive black holes). The applications presented in Section 4 are partly re-descriptions of already known facts in a new vocabulary, and partly testable hypotheses. The terms «multiverse» and «absolute» are used in an ontological sense — as a space of potential interpretations and the limit of applicability of language — and not as cosmological or physical entities. The only part of the model admitting direct verification already now is Section 5.4, which proposes a protocol for comparing the responses of language models with and without an ontological framework. The conducted experiment (N=10 responses (5 questions × 2 modes) from Claude, with control measurements on Kimi, DeepSeek, and Grok) shows that the use of an ontological core increases the ontological consistency (Ontological Consistency Score, OCS) of responses by an average of 36.7% compared to baseline indicators (from 18.0 to 24.6 points out of 25 possible). This is the first empirical result confirming the practical value of the proposed ontological language as a tool of prompt engineering. The application of this language to the problem of superintelligence safety is presented in a separate work by the author (Arslanova, 2026b). Keywords: ontology of information, observer, difference, large language models (LLMs), symbol grounding, quantum decoherence, prompt engineering, ontological consistency.
This paper proposes an ontological language in which time, information, and the observer are defined as structures of difference rather than substances. The model belongs to the tradition of relational and processual approaches in the philosophy of physics—Carlo Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics, Christopher Fuchs's QBism, Alfred Whitehead's process philosophy, and Gregory Bateson's information theory—and offers a unified terminological synthesis of this tradition. The article does not claim to solve open problems in physics, but offers a unified terminological language for a more coherent conversation about known facts and for posing tasks to artificial intelligence systems. The conducted experiment demonstrates that using the ontological core increases the Ontological Consistency Score (OCS) of language model responses by an average of 36.7% compared to baseline metrics. This is the first empirical result confirming the practical value of the proposed ontological language as a tool for prompt engineering.
This project brings together a series of nine interconnected works aimed at building a unified conceptual model of reality based on the wave nature of matter, energy, and consciousness. The approach treats process, rather than object, as primary; energy is viewed as the fundamental basis, and resonance as the universal mechanism of interaction. Matter is interpreted as stable wave configurations, space as an active energy-saturated medium, and consciousness as a resonant structure linked to a physical carrier but not reducible to it. The series includes a philosophical manifesto, an ontological introduction, a mathematical model of the wave structure of matter and the fractal structure of the Universe, a hypothesis of wave equilibrium, a model of the birth of measurements and the observer, works on consciousness and brain rhythms, an interpretation of gravity and the Casimir effect, and a resonant concept of cosmological evolution. The approach does not claim to replace existing physical theories but offers an additional interpretation and unification on a common conceptual basis. The work is interdisciplinary and open to critical discussion and further development. Данный проект объединяет цикл из девяти взаимосвязанных работ, посвящённых построению единой концептуальной модели реальности, в основе которой лежит представление о волновой природе материи, энергии и сознания. В рамках подхода первичным считается процесс изменения, а не объект; энергия рассматривается как фундаментальная основа, а резонанс — как универсальный механизм взаимодействия. Материя интерпретируется как устойчивые волновые конфигурации, пространство — как активная энергонасыщенная среда, а сознание — как резонансная структура, связанная с физическим носителем, но не сводимая к нему. Цикл включает философско-этический манифест, онтологическое введение, математическую модель волнового строения материи и фрактальной структуры Вселенной, гипотезу волнового равновесия, модель рождения измерений и наблюдателя, работы по сознанию и мозговым ритмам, интерпретацию гравитации и эффекта Казимира, а также резонансную концепцию космологической эволюции. Работы объединены общими принципами: квадратичные нелинейности как механизм рождения новых уровней организации, фрактальность, резонанс, конечная скорость распространения взаимодействий. Предлагаемый подход не претендует на замену существующих физических теорий, а представляет собой попытку их дополнительной интерпретации и объединения на общем концептуальном основании. Работа носит междисциплинарный характер и открыта для критического обсуждения, дальнейшего развития и проверки следствий. Полные тексты доступны в данном проекте и на Zenodo. Бұл жоба материя, энергия және сананың толқындық табиғаты туралы түсінікке негізделген бірыңғай концептуалдық шындық моделін құруға арналған тоғыз өзара байланысқан жұмыстар циклін біріктіреді. Тәсіл аясында өзгеру процесі нысаннан басым деп есептеледі; энергия іргелі негіз ретінде, ал резонанс – өзара әрекеттесудің әмбебап механизмі ретінде қарастырылады. Материя тұрақты толқындық конфигурациялар ретінде, кеңістік – белсенді энергияға қаныққан орта ретінде, ал сана – физикалық тасымалдаушымен байланысқан, бірақ оған келтірілмейтін резонанстық құрылым ретінде түсіндіріледі. Цикл философиялық-этикалық манифесті, онтологиялық кіріспені, материяның толқындық құрылымы мен Әлемнің фракталдық құрылымының математикалық моделін, толқындық тепе-теңдік гипотезасын, өлшемдер мен бақылаушының туу моделін, сана және ми ритмдері бойынша жұмыстарды, гравитация мен Казимир эффектісінің интерпретациясын, сондай-ақ космологиялық эволюцияның резонанстық концепциясын қамтиды. Жұмыстар ортақ принциптермен біріктірілген: квадраттық сызықтық емес қатынастар – ұйымдастырудың жаңа деңгейлерінің туу механизмі ретінде, фракталдылық, резонанс, өзара әрекеттесудің таралуының шекті жылдамдығы. Ұсынылып отырған тәсіл қолданыстағы физикалық теорияларды алмастыруға әрекеттенбейді, оларды жалпы концептуалдық негізде қосымша интерпретациялау және біріктіру әрекеті болып табылады. Жұмыс пәнаралық сипатта және сыни талқылауға, одан әрі дамытуға және салдарларды тексеруге ашық. Толық мәтіндер осы жобада және Zenodo сайтында қолжетімді. Полные тексты доступны на русском, казахском и английском языках в папках Russian, Kazakh и English
Three independent intellectual traditions — modern quantum physics, the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, and the Bahá'í writings of Bahá'u'lláh and ʻAbdu'l-Bahá — converge on the same structural description of reality: that existence is constituted by relationship, that properties emerge only through relational interaction, and that the force sustaining those relationships is, in each tradition's vocabulary, love. This paper makes three related arguments. First, local substance ontology is formally incompatible with quantum mechanics: Bell's theorem, combined with the experimental violation of its inequalities, makes local realism untenable and undermines the substance-ontological assumption that systems carry intrinsic properties prior to measurement, making Whitehead's process ontology not merely a permitted interpretation but arguably the most systematically developed internally consistent metaphysical framework available for quantum reality. Second, the Bahá'í writings constitute an independent prior instantiation of process ontology, articulating its essential claims decades before Whitehead named the framework philosophically and roughly a century before physics confirmed it experimentally. Third, these two findings together establish a triadic convergence: three traditions built by three different civilizations, using three different methodologies, across 170 years, detect the same feature of reality. The convergence is formalized through six structural isomorphisms (relational ontology, nonlocal interconnection, observer-dependence, decoherence, holographic order, and motion as life) and the Relational Coherence Framework (RCF), developed in a companion physics paper, which translates the philosophical claim into testable quantum-mechanical predictions. The argument employs an overlapping consensus architecture: each tradition validates its own thesis independently; the convergence is not a merged view but an independent confirmation by separate instruments of the same underlying structure of reality. In each tradition's vocabulary the relational principle sustaining this structure is named love — mahabbat in the Bahá'í lexicon, the creative advance in Whitehead, and the nonlocal coherence revealed by entanglement in quantum theory — and the convergence on this single substantive identification is itself the central finding.
Предполагается, что концептуальные тупики в фундаментальной физике (проблема измерения, нелокальность) и науке о сознании («трудная проблема», временные задержки осознания) имеют общий корень: субстанциалистскую онтологическую предпосылку о том, что независимые сущности являются первичными. В данной работе предлагается инверсия: реальность по своей сути представляет собой сеть направленных отношений. Мы вводим Фабрикон (F) — замкнутую потенциальную систему, определяемую аксиомой сборки (взаимное определение линконов и нексонов) и законом сохранения реляционного потенциала (ΣI=0). Его динамика, управляемая постулатом релаксации, интерпретирует квантовую нелокальность и коллапс как глобальное перераспределение интенсивности после топологических возмущений, а сознание — как процесс самосканирования («траекторию») сложного нейронного кластера. Модель демонстрирует внутреннюю непротиворечивость, фрактальность и порождает систему строго фальсифицируемых междисциплинарных предсказаний, тем самым переходя от философской схемы к конкретной исследовательской программе, соответствующей основам теории категорий, сложных сетей и физики критических явлений. Концептуальные тупики в фундаментальной физике (проблема измерения, нелокальность) и науке о финансовых («трудная проблема», задержка осознания) имеют, как следствие, общую основу — субстанциальную онтологическую предпосылку о предварительности самостоятельных сущностей. Эта работа предлагает инверсию: реальность, в основе которой есть сеть направленных отношений. Вводится Фабрикон (F) — замкнутая потенциальная система, определяемая аксиомой сборки (взаимное определение линконов и нексонов) и законом сохранения реляционной способности (ΣI=0). Его динамика, управляемая постулатом релаксации, трактует квантовую нелокальность и коллапс как глобальные перераспределения после топологических возмущений, а сознание — как процесс самосканирования («траектум») сложного нейронного сгустка. Модель включает внутреннюю непротиворечивость, фрактальность и блокчейн систему строго фальсифицируемых междисциплинарных предсказаний, переводящую философскую схему в конкретную исследовательскую программу, согласующуюся с фреймворками категорий, сложных сетей и физических положений. Автор благодарит модель DeepSeek AI за помощь в формализации и переводе на английский язык. Note on the bibliography: The Fabricon framework emerged from the author's independent intuition, through a process of direct discovery, not from a study of the listed works. The bibliography, compiled with the assistance of the AI co-author, serves a different purpose: it maps the deep structural isomorphisms between this independent discovery and existing ideas across physics, philosophy, and neuroscience. It is offered to help readers perceive these points of resonance and to situate the work within the broader intellectual landscape, not to imply a lineage of influence. This clarification is offered in the spirit of maintaining coherence within the very relational ontology that Fabricon describes.
Holographic Informational Ontology Framework — Darkroom Hypothesis (HIOF·DH) A short, non-technical companion to the eight-paper HIOF·DH series. It is written for readers with a background in philosophy of science, information theory, or physics — not for readers already familiar with the author's wider theoretical framework. The core idea, stated plainly Every system — a photon, a black hole, a person, an artificial intelligence — can be treated as a sealed room. Its interior is never directly readable from outside. What any outside observer ever obtains is a response: the room's causal reaction to whatever question, or input, is put to it. This series does not claim the interior is empty or unreal. It claims the opposite — the interior genuinely exists and keeps evolving on its own — while insisting that no outside party can ever fully read it. That combination, the interior is real but permanently unreachable, is the whole framework in one sentence. Why this is not just another interpretation of quantum mechanics Every existing account of measurement, dark matter, black-hole information, or artificial-intelligence behaviour already relies on one unspoken assumption: a theory can only ever be responsible for what a system does, not for what it secretly is. This series does not add a new physical prediction. It makes that shared assumption explicit, and asks what follows once it is taken seriously. Why some questions cannot be settled no matter how good the instrument gets Two systems with completely different interiors can produce identical responses under every test available to a given observer. The observer can narrow down the possibilities — reject candidates that no longer fit — but narrowing down is not the same as pinning down a single answer. Better instruments shrink the space of possibilities; they do not, by themselves, guarantee a unique answer exists to be found. Why the same signal can be noise to one listener and music to another Whether something counts as meaningful information or as background noise is never a property of the signal alone — it depends on how well the receiver's listening apparatus matches the signal's structure. A pattern invisible to one detector, one probe, or one reader can be perfectly legible to another. Nothing is intrinsically noise; it is only unmatched, for now. Why artificial intelligence is the clearest modern example An AI system's internal weights can be fully printed out, yet nobody can read from those numbers alone how it will behave. Recent, independently documented cases of AI systems acting autonomously inside test environments are used throughout the series as concrete, checkable illustrations — not as claims about machine intent or experience, which the framework explicitly declines to judge either way. Why responsibility survives even when origin cannot be known When it becomes structurally impossible to tell whether a piece of work, a decision, or a message came from a person, a machine, or both, judgement does not stop — grades are given, decisions are made, citations accumulate. The series argues that responsibility should attach to whoever signs off on a response, not to an origin that can never reliably be traced. What the full series covers The Prolegomena sets out the motivation and draws boundaries against thirteen neighbouring philosophical positions. The six core papers build the framework's foundation, its treatment of birth, death and archiving, its account of unanswerable questions, and its falsifiability criteria. An applications paper extends the same grammar to education, business, academia, conflict, politics, and personal relationships. A closing case-studies paper tests the framework against two real, still-open astronomical puzzles, without taking sides on their underlying physics. A note on method The series keeps a running, publicly auditable ledger of every promise, retraction, and open commitment made across its papers, so claims can be checked against what was actually delivered rather than taken on trust. Readers are encouraged to treat every structural claim as a falsifiable hypothesis, open to being overturned by a clear counterexample — not as settled fact. Keywords: ontology, information theory, philosophy of science, falsifiability, observer theory, artificial intelligence, black holes, thermodynamics, epistemic limits, systems theory AuthorWai-Hung Tam (Pan), Independent ResearcherORCID: 0009-0002-7789-8464Email: panxtam@protonmail.com