Ontological Language of Difference: Observer, Time, Information — A Philosophical Framework and Its Application to the Interpretation of Language Models
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 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.
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 problem of commensurability/incommensurability of different cultural codes is a key problem of modern civilizational development. This is the problem of the search for communicative unity in the world of cultural and biological diversity, which has to be protected, and the search for the cohesion of different Umwelten, of semiotically-defined artificial and natural environments, of ecological and cognitive niches, taking into account that each of them has their own identity and uniqueness. The purpose of the article is to draw attention to the fact that the question of the so-called incommensurability of different conceptual schemes, paradigms, language consciousnesses is widely discussed not only in cross-cultural studies and philosophical problems of translation but also in connection with the problems of incommensurability (untranslatability) between the language of classical physics and the language of relativistic quantum physics. Attention is drawn to the problem of the incommensurability and correlation of different languages that are used in debates about the foundations of quantum mechanics, its interpretation, comprehension and ontology. Two approaches stand out in this debate. The first approach is based on the language of the formed being, on the language of things localized in time and on the logic of Aristotle. The second approach is based on the language of the becoming, process and nonlocality, on the search for various processual-oriented temporal logics. In this regard, we discuss the processual approach to understanding quantum mechanics, proposed in the philosophical and physical works of D. Bohm. The authors argue that (a) the experience of constructive understanding of the metaproblems of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, (b) the critical reception of the legacy of such philosophers of the process as Peirce, Bergson and Whitehead, (c) the deep reflection on the problems of commensurability/ incommensurability of linguistic consciousnesses of different cultures – will eventually create a common synergetic-interdisciplinary space of cooperation for the solutions of the above-mentioned issues.
The article analyzes the principal interpretations of quantum mechanics from the standpoint of an original conception of informational realism. It is shown that these interpretations can be unified within an informational ontology in which fundamental status is accorded to informational invariants of quantum constraints that are common to all empirically equivalent interpretations of quantum mechanics. A distinction is proposed between two informational layers: epistemic information (measurement data and the updating of knowledge on their basis) and ontic information (invariant structures and constraints). The first layer varies across interpretations, whereas the second is preserved, which explains their experimental equivalence. The proposed informational ontology is compared with other realist approaches, and its advantages are formulated and argued for. It is shown that all the interpretations considered, despite often incompatible philosophical foundations and worldviews, are equally dependent on a certain set of informational invariants, which prove to be primary with respect to any particular interpretation. This can be explained either by the fact that a unified descriptive model of real physical processes at the quantum level is still unknown, or – as argued in the present article – by the claim that the fundamental level consists of informational constraints, and that different descriptions are equivalent, with their differences explained by distinct perspectives. The novelty and contribution of the article consist in proposing an operational definition of a falsifiable class of invariants and constraints on operations that are stable under changes of perspective; providing a unified translational vocabulary for interpretations in terms of the two informational layers; showing that their empirical equivalence is explained by the preservation of the same ontic layer; and formulating a criterion for distinguishing interpretations from alternative theories. Taken together, this allows informational ontology to be regarded as a meta-position with respect to these interpretations.
This document presents the philosophical foundations and applied implications of the Universal Correlational Lattice (UCL) and the Ω-Framework, a theoretical program in which spacetime, quantum fields, observables, and effective physical laws emerge from a single correlational structure. Rather than treating philosophy of physics as a purely interpretative layer placed after formal theory, this work adopts a constructive philosophical stance: ontology, epistemology, and operational meaning are treated as structural components that directly constrain and shape the mathematical formulation of physical theories. The core thesis is that physical reality is fundamentally correlational, not object-based. All observables, symmetries, conservation laws, and effective dynamics arise from a universal correlational kernel defined over internal degrees of freedom and internal times. Spacetime, causality, and classical fields appear only as emergent, coarse-grained descriptions of this deeper correlational substrate. This document addresses, in a unified way: The ontological status of physical structures in the Ω-Framework The role of internal time, relational observables, and contextual measurement A precise operational definition of observables, free from classical background assumptions The distinction between fundamental correlational quantities and effective physical observables How classical concepts (particles, fields, spacetime, trajectories) emerge as stable correlational regimes The relationship between the framework and established theories such as QFT, General Relativity, and effective field theories Criteria for physical meaning, testability, and falsifiability within a correlational theory Crucially, the work postulates that the Ω-Framework is not merely interpretative: it produces concrete, computable observables and effective predictions, including toy-model applications to known physical quantities. Natural philosophy here is expected to work and the current thesis is that it functions as a structural constraint, not as speculation. By explicitly separating: what is fundamental vs. emergent, what is ontological vs. operational, and what is model-dependent vs. structurally necessary, the document provides a rigorous foundation for extending the Ω-Framework toward quantitative physics, while remaining internally consistent and immune to common interpretational ambiguities. This work is intended for philosophy of physics, quantum foundations, quantum gravity, emergent spacetime programs, and theoretical physics seeking a structurally grounded alternative to object-based formalisms.
In classical information theory (represented by Shannon's framework), the study of information transmission typically presupposes a fixed "channel" endowed with absolute attributes. This assumption implicitly holds that the properties of the channel are determinate and observer-independent, remaining unchanged regardless of perspective or the state of the channel itself. However, contemporary physics---particularly the development of quantum mechanics---fundamentally challenges the very notion of "absoluteness." As Carlo Rovelli has emphasized in one of his core arguments, quantum mechanics compels us to abandon the conception of states and properties as "absolute" and "observer-independent." The insistence on such absoluteness is precisely what underlies many of the paradoxes and interpretative difficulties that plague quantum theory. Rovelli extends this general philosophical critique of "absoluteness" consistently into the domain of information theory, thereby provoking a profound re-examination and critique of the classical presupposition of the "absolute channel." From this relational perspective, information should not be conceived as an abstract entity existing independently of physical relations, but rather as an observable measure of relative relations between systems. Accordingly, the reconstruction of classical information theory on the basis of relational ontology---namely, the reconstruction of information theory itself---is not only a demand of theoretical coherence but also a necessary step in responding to the challenge of quantum reality and in building a more universal theory of information.
Quantum mechanics has transformed our understanding of reality, yet deep philosophical puzzles remain unresolved. Is there a consistent way to describe quantum measurement, the emergence of space and time, and the role of observers within one coherent ontology? This paper introduces Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD), an interpretation that places relationships and information—not isolated objects—at the foundation of physics. Unlike traditional views, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, Everett’s many-worlds theory, or hidden-variable approaches, RQD denies a single observer-independent reality, instead proposing that facts only become definite within specific observational contexts. It explicitly addresses foundational no-go results, including Bell’s theorem, the Kochen–Specker theorem, and the Frauchiger–Renner paradox, by replacing absolute facts with relational, context-dependent truths. RQD rests on five interlocking principles: (1) quantum states are contextual and observer-relative, (2) time emerges from quantum interactions rather than existing as an external parameter, (3) space is constructed from patterns of quantum entanglement, (4) observers emerge as systems with highly integrated information, and (5) classical reality appears through quantum decoherence without special wavefunction collapse. Philosophically, RQD aligns with ontic structural realism, proposing that the fundamental ontology of the universe consists entirely of informational relations. It avoids collapsing into relativism or solipsism by ensuring intersubjective agreement through physical interactions. Ultimately, RQD may offer a unified picture in which quantum mechanics, spacetime, and observers are no longer separate domains but aspects of one interconnected informational web.