The article formulates the ontological principle "everything is already here." Its essence: the complete set of all elements of which all possible universes may consist exists in a single volume. Individual universes are different sets of active (manifested) elements from this complete set. The remaining elements are latent (unmanifested). Transition between universes is a change of level of description G, not movement in space. The principle differs from a model. The principle asserts what exists. The model describes how it works. The principle does not depend on an observer: Ω exists independently of whether anyone reads it. The observer affects only the active set A(G), but not the existence of Ω. Ω is not a substance, not a field, not particles, but an ontological category — "that of which universes may consist." A distinction is introduced between G-ontological (natural selection under equilibrium) and G-epistemic (the observer's choice). Formally: U(G) = P(G)(Ω), where P(G) is the projection operator. The change of G is not a physical process but a change of the mode of reading. The principle is compared with close concepts: Parmenides, Platonism, MWI (Everett), MIW (Hall, Wiseman, Deckert). It is shown to occupy a unique niche and not repeat what is known. Consequences: parallel universes are different projections of one set; transition is a change of G; latency is real; the ontological invariant is preserved under a change of G. The principle allows an interpretation of quantum entanglement: particles are projections of one element of Ω, not connected by a superluminal signal. This is consistent with the no-signaling theorem. Open questions: does Ω exist? What does it consist of? How is the space of G structured? Why are some elements active and others not? Is the principle compatible with known physics? Can it be tested? One Ω or many? The article indicates the problem but does not solve it.
The article formulates the ontological principle "everything is already here." Its essence: the complete set of all elements of which all possible universes may consist exists in a single volume. Individual universes are different sets of active (manifested) elements from this complete set. The remaining elements are latent (unmanifested). Transition between universes is a change of level of description G, not movement in space. The principle differs from a model. The principle asserts what exists. The model describes how it works. The principle does not depend on an observer: Ω exists independently of whether anyone reads it. The observer affects only the active set A(G), but not the existence of Ω. Ω is not a substance, not a field, not particles, but an ontological category — "that of which universes may consist." A distinction is introduced between G-ontological (natural selection under equilibrium) and G-epistemic (the observer's choice). Formally: U(G) = P(G)(Ω), where P(G) is the projection operator. The change of G is not a physical process but a change of the mode of reading. The principle is compared with close concepts: Parmenides, Platonism, MWI (Everett), MIW (Hall, Wiseman, Deckert). It is shown to occupy a unique niche and not repeat what is known. Consequences: parallel universes are different projections of one set; transition is a change of G; latency is real; the ontological invariant is preserved under a change of G. The principle allows an interpretation of quantum entanglement: particles are projections of one element of Ω, not connected by a superluminal signal. This is consistent with the no-signaling theorem. Open questions: does Ω exist? What does it consist of? How is the space of G structured? Why are some elements active and others not? Is the principle compatible with known physics? Can it be tested? One Ω or many? The article indicates the problem but does not solve it.
The article systematically presents and develops the concept "Everything Is Already Here" — an ontological model of parallel universes. Its essence: all elements of reality of all possible universes exist in a single ontological volume Ω. Different universes are different sets of active elements determined by the ontological selector S. S is not the choice of an observer and not a scale of observation, but a formal parameter that determines which elements from the complete set Ω are activated (manifested) in a given universe. S acts as natural selection under equilibrium: the universe activates only those elements that correspond to its stable parameters of space-time. The transition between universes is not movement in space but a change of S. It is shown that the concept explains quantum entanglement, nonlocality, and the absence of superluminal information transfer without postulating branching, interaction, or remoteness. Entangled particles are not connected by a superluminal signal; they are projections of one and the same element of Ω at a given S. This is consistent with the no-signaling theorem: the projection of a common element does not transmit information but only manifests a correlation. A comparison is conducted with existing approaches: Everett's many-worlds interpretation, Many Interacting Worlds of Hall, Wiseman, and Deckert, Lewis's modal realism, Saan's principle of plenitude, Tegmark's Multiverse, Susskind's string landscape. It is shown that the uniqueness of the model lies in the combination of the ideas of projection ontology, ontological choice S, and empirical testability. A program of empirical verification is proposed: CMB anomalies, H0 tension, variations of fundamental constants, anomalies in the distribution of galaxies, vacuum fluctuations (Casimir effect). Open questions are discussed: how does the change of S occur? Does a hierarchy of universes exist? How do elements of reality relate to physical fields and particles? Can traces of other values of S be detected in the laboratory? The model is open to further formalization and experimental verification.
The article proposes a new interpretation of parallel universes: they are not located "somewhere far away," but exist in the very same volume of space as our Universe. Different universes are different sets of active elements of reality that we "read" from a single "set" at different levels of description G. The key metaphor is the airport board: the board is one and the same, but by opening different cells we get different symbols. Formally: Universe U(G) = P(G)(Ω), where P(G) is the projection operator, Ω is the complete set of all degrees of freedom. The transition between universes is a change of the level of description G, not movement in space. This distinguishes the model from Everett's many-worlds interpretation, where branching is irreversible: in the proposed model the transition is reversible. A comparison is conducted with existing interpretations: Everett's MWI, Tegmark's Multiverse, MIW of Hall, Wiseman, and Deckert, brane worlds in string theory. It is shown that the model occupies a unique niche: not branching, not interaction, not remoteness, but an ontological choice. Consequences for superluminal communication are discussed: the signal does not fly through a brane but switches to another G. Verifiable consequences are proposed: anomalies in the cosmic microwave background, vacuum fluctuations, indirect markers. The model is consistent with the principles of the projection ontology of EFOS and resolves the problems of the standard many-worlds interpretation: it does not require infinite energy, does not require postulating irreversible branching. Key conclusions: parallel universes are here, in one volume; the transition between them is a change of G; the model has verifiable consequences.
The article proposes a new interpretation of parallel universes: they are not located "somewhere far away," but exist in the very same volume of space as our Universe. Different universes are different sets of active elements of reality that we "read" from a single "set" at different configurations of S. The key allegory is the "airport board": the board is one and the same, but by opening different cells we get different symbols. It is shown that the transition between universes is not movement in space and not a change of the scale of observation, but a change of the active set of elements A(S). This model is consistent with the principles of the projection ontology of EFOS (Entity Forming Objects and Subjects) and resolves the problems of the standard many-worlds interpretation: it does not require branching of worlds, does not require infinite energy, and the transition between universes is reversible. The ontological selector S is introduced as a parameter that determines which particular set of elements of reality from the complete set Ω is activated. It is emphasized that the complete set Ω exists independently of S. A change of S changes the active set; a change of the scale G does not. A comparison is conducted with existing interpretations: the many-worlds interpretation of Everett, the Multiverse theory of Tegmark, the theory of Many Interacting Worlds of Hall, Wiseman, and Deckert, and brane worlds. Consequences for superluminal communication are discussed: the signal is transmitted through a projection at another S. Possible areas of search are proposed: anomalies in the cosmic microwave background, vacuum fluctuations, indirect markers.
The article eliminates the ambiguity in the use of the concept G in the MBM series. Previously, G denoted both the scale of observation (level of detail) and the selector of the set of elements of reality. Now two independent concepts are introduced: G (epistemic choice, scale) and S (ontological selector). It is shown that a change of G does not change the active set A(S) and, consequently, does not generate new universes. It is merely a change of description. A change of S, by contrast, changes the active set A(S), which signifies a transition to another universe. A formal apparatus for S is proposed. The space of configurations 𝕊 is the set of all possible values of the selector. Its structure (finite, countable, continuous) remains an open question. The projection operator P(S): Ω → U(S) singles out the activated set from the complete set Ω. Its idempotence and injectivity are assumed. The activated set A(S) is introduced, along with the condition for the existence of a stable universe: the set must be closed to maintain isolated space-time on a scale of 50–100 billion years. Rules for changing configurations S → S' are formulated. It is noted that the transition is reversible, unlike the irreversible branching in the many-worlds interpretation. However, reversibility is a property of the formal structure, not a practical possibility for an observer. The connection of S with topology T(S) and metric is discussed. The connection with EFOS (elements of reality are projections of EFOS at a given S) and the metrics of the series (SQ, HII, IIC) is established. Open questions are formulated: the nature of the space 𝕊, the existence of a "base" value of S (our Universe), criteria for distinguishing S and G, rules of transition, connection with topology and quantum measurements, possible empirical manifestations of a change of S. The formalization of S eliminates terminological confusion and sets the direction for further research.
Title Ontological Uniqueness of Quantum Mechanics: A Pre-Quantum Classification Theorem Description This work addresses one of the most fundamental questions in theoretical physics: Why does nature employ quantum mechanical structure rather than alternative mathematical frameworks? We prove a rigorous classification theorem showing that quantum mechanics is not one possible theory among many, but the unique mathematical structure compatible with ontological continuity—the principle that "being cannot cease to be." Unlike previous approaches that either interpret quantum mechanics within its existing formalism (many-worlds, Bohmian mechanics) or derive it from operational measurement axioms (Gleason, Hardy, Chiribella-D'Ariano-Perinotti), this work operates at a pre-quantum logical level: we classify which geometric structures are ontologically admissible before introducing any quantum formalism. Main Result: Any theory satisfying minimal ontological requirements—continuity of being, compositional independence of subsystems, and reversibility of closed-system evolution—must describe the space of identity-classes as complex projective space ℂℙⁿ equipped with the Fubini–Study metric. Complex Hilbert space, unitary dynamics, the Schrödinger equation, and the Born rule emerge as necessary geometric consequences, not as postulates. Alternative structures (real or quaternionic projective spaces, non-homogeneous manifolds) are proven ontologically inadmissible through rigorous exclusion arguments. Key Contributions: Rigorous derivation showing that ontological composition forces a symplectic structure, which combined with homogeneity and isotropy uniquely determines Kähler geometry, selecting ℂℙⁿ as the only admissible space. Complete defense against circularity concerns, with detailed appendices showing that the axioms assume no quantum structure—they are purely ontological requirements for coherent continuous being. Systematic distinction from Gleason/Kochen-Specker theorems and operational axiomatizations, clarifying that this work classifies geometries before quantum mechanics, not constraints within it. Testable predictions in cosmology (Hubble tension resolution, matter fluctuation scaling) and quantum foundations (decoherence rates in molecular interferometry), while rigorously separating structural necessity from empirical determination. Significance: This work transforms quantum mechanics from an empirically successful but conceptually mysterious framework into an ontologically inevitable structure—comparable to Einstein's geometrization of gravity. It shows that quantum structure has no alternative: it is the only mathematical form compatible with coherent, continuous, compositional being. The manuscript includes comprehensive technical appendices with full geometric proofs, axiom justifications, and comparative analysis with existing foundational approaches. Suitable for researchers in quantum foundations, mathematical physics, philosophy of physics, and differential geometry. Document Status: Preprint submitted to Foundations of Physics (January 2026). Related Work: This work is part of the Law of Continuity of Being (LCS) research program, which derives physical and ethical structures from fundamental ontological principles. See author's ORCID profile for related publications. Open Access: This preprint is made available under CC BY 4.0 license to facilitate discussion and feedback from the research community prior to peer review.
Two narratives – natural science and religious, intersect in the area of unobservable ontology – an immaterial, transcendental, but real area that paradoxically exists outside and inside ordinary physical space-time. It is assumed that mathematical constructs, physical laws, physical constants, quantum objects, and even biological laws can be associated with this area. It is argued that physical laws are not invented by man, but are discovered, since they contain physical constants measured in special experimental works. Universal constants were not invented for reasons of convenience – physics accepts them as an inevitable consequence of the coincidence of the results of all special measurements. Observational data are presented that indicate an extremely small change in fundamental constants or even their constancy over the entire time of the existence of the Universe, although this interesting problem cannot be considered finally solved. The ontology of quantum objects is considered within the framework of Sevalnikov's polyiontic paradigm, according to which two modes are distinguished – potential and actual. The potential existence of quantum objects is described by the Schrödinger wave function, and the actual one appears during the transition from the spectrum of possible states to the only observable one. It is emphasized that potential being does not belong to the classical space, but is in an unobservable ontology. The observed state, on the contrary, is already in ordinary space – time and can be recorded by the device. This determines the existence of a special transcendental layer of reality, along with the material, which may indicate a certain duality in the structure of the Universe. Then it should be assumed that our Universe is not a universal, but a multiverse – a set of different worlds ontologically having a different nature. In addition, the polyiontic paradigm leads to the idea that, at the quantum level, matter can be derived from information hidden in an unobservable ontology.