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 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 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 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 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 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.
This paper presents a definitive refutation of the recurring conjecture that the Ze framework constitutes a variant of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. Through a systematic, point-by-point analysis, we demonstrate that the two are radically orthogonal paradigms, separated by irreconcilable differences in their foundational principles. While both reject the notion of a fundamental wavefunction collapse, MWI responds by positing an ever-branching multiverse where all quantum possibilities are ontologically real. In stark contrast, the Ze framework, grounded in the principles of active inference and free energy minimization, preserves a single-world ontology. It reinterprets quantum superpositions as manifestations of unresolved epistemic model conflict within an adaptive system, and "measurement" as the physical process of forced localization, where a definite history crystallizes. The analysis conclusively distinguishes Ze from MWI across critical dimensions: the nature of alternatives (ontological worlds vs. epistemic models), the process of definiteness (subjective branching vs. objective optimization), the role of the observer (covert privilege vs. its elimination), and the capacity for empirical prediction. We conclude that Ze is not an interpretation of quantum formalism but a broader theory of how adaptive systems, from particles to brains, resolve uncertainty, thereby offering a monistic, parsimonious, and empirically grounded alternative to the inflationary ontology of the multiverse.