A Ln

This article examines the relation between mathematical objects and physical en- tities through a rigorous ontological and epistemological framework. We develop a conceptual typology distinguishing formal, operational, and physical levels of object- hood, and analyze the transitions from mathematical structures to physical reality via stabilized regimes of projection. The proposal aims to clarify long-standing con- fusions in the philosophy of physics and advocate for a regulated, stratified ontology of scientific entities.

Ontic Structural Realism (OSR) proposes a radical reconception of metaphysical ontology: not as a theory of objects and their intrinsic properties, but as a framework grounded in re- lational structure. This paper defends a dynamic and moderate version of OSR, arguing that metaphysical individuation is not fundamental but emerges from invariant configurations within evolving structural systems. Drawing on recent debates in metaphysics and the formalism of quantum physics, we formulate a theory of identity as structural persistence under morphic tran- sitions. This account avoids eliminativist extremes while dissolving the metaphysical privilege of objecthood, thereby aligning ontology with the non-individualistic core of modern physics.

This article critically examines the ontological status of complex systems as used in contem- porary scientific discourse. It argues that the concept of a complex system, while heuristically valuable, lacks ontological coherence. Drawing on structural realism and a critique of emergen- tism, it proposes an alternative framework in which what is commonly referred to as a complex system is reconceptualized as a regime of dynamically stabilized constraints. This structural approach avoids the pitfalls of system reification and offers a clearer ontological account of scientific organization.

The Disintegration of Meaning: Structural Objectivity and the Epistemic Crisis of Ultra-Specialized Science This preprint offers a structural diagnosis of the contemporary crisis of scientific objectivity in the context of hyper-specialized epistemic regimes. Rather than attributing the erosion of trust in science to sociological factors alone, the article reframes the issue as an ontological and organizational disjunction between epistemic authority and intersubjective intelligibility. Drawing on philosophy of science, structural realism, and science and technology studies (STS), it argues that objectivity is no longer tenable as a procedural or representational ideal. Instead, it introduces a new framework centered on *epistemic regimes*, *ontogenetic articulation*, and *structural intelligibility*, proposing that science must be understood as the collective articulation of a shared real. This work aims to contribute to the theoretical reconstruction of objectivity beyond relativism and technocracy, by reestablishing the role of intentional transparency, cognitive openness, and plural rationality in the structure of scientific knowledge. Preprint submitted to _Foundations of Science_ on May 30, 2025.

This article proposes a structural and transformational account of identity that dispenses with the need for ontological substrata, such as intrinsic essences, primitive thisness, or per- sistent objects. Drawing on developments in quantum physics and contemporary structural realism, we argue that individuation should be conceived as the stabilization of structural roles within dynamically constrained regimes. Identity is reconceptualized not as a meta- physical primitive, but as a differential invariant under quasi-isomorphic transformations. We introduce a regime-indexed modal framework in which actualization replaces reference, and constraint architectures determine the admissible space of individuated configurations. This leads to a processual ontology in which objects emerge as stabilized effects of structural coherence. We address key objections to ontic structural realism—including the problem of relata, the vacuity objection, and the risk of global abstraction—by articulating a stratified model of local identity. The result is a fully modal and non-substantialist ontology of indi- viduation, grounded in dynamic structure and compatible with pre-geometric approaches in fundamental physics.

This article critically examines the ontological status of complex systems as used in contem- porary scientific discourse. It argues that the concept of a complex system, while heuristically valuable, lacks ontological coherence. Drawing on structural realism and a critique of emergen- tism, it proposes an alternative framework in which what is commonly referred to as a complex system is reconceptualized as a regime of dynamically stabilized constraints. This structural approach avoids the pitfalls of system reification and offers a clearer ontological account of scientific organization.

This paper proposes a novel ontological account of the present that reconciles temporal becoming with the relativistic structure of modern physics. While existing models—presentism, eternalism, the growing block, and the moving spotlight—struggle to accommodate both the empirical insights of relativity and the phenomenological reality of temporal passage, we introduce an alternative framework: the present as a local acme of ontological actualization. Instead of presupposing a global simultaneity or a geometric foliation of spacetime, we define the present as the point of maximal ontic differentiation within a stratified, non-metric field. This tensorial field, defined over a base manifold lacking metric or causal structure, encodes gradients of actualization intensity. Local peaks in this field give rise to stable configurations—projected as regimes of geometry, matter, and causality. Our model preserves local relativistic invariance while offering a dynamic, generative ontology of time. Temporal becoming is no longer a flow through a fixed background but an emergent topology of stabilization. The present, thus redefined, becomes not a slice in time but the structural operator through which the world becomes actual. We argue that this approach opens new perspectives for reconciling metaphysical realism about the present with the operational structure of physical theory.

This paper proposes a novel reconciliation between presentism and ontic struc- tural realism (OSR) by introducing a structurally dynamic conception of temporal existence. Against both the eternalist metaphysics of the block universe and the eliminativism of classical OSR, we defend a model of "presentist structure-flux," in which only the structural configuration of the present exists, but diachronic conti- nuity is preserved via quasi-isomorphic transitions. This framework accommodates key features of quantum theory (non-locality, entanglement, indistinguishability) while avoiding metaphysical contradictions and offering a novel reconciliation of presentism and structural realism, free from metric commitments and ontological substrata. This article proposes a structural reformulation of presentism, in which only the current configuration of relational constraints—understood morphically—is ontologically instantiated.

We argue that the distinction between ontological and nomological past dissolves classical objections to presentism grounded in truthmak- ing. This shift enables a new presentist semantics without eternalist commitments, rooted in a stratified theory of actualization, and in- spired by recent work in ontic structural realism (French 2014; Lady- man Ross 2007). Whereas the ontological past is no longer existent, the nomological past remains inferentially reconstructible via struc- tural constraints in the present. This shift enables a new presentist semantics without eternalist commitments, rooted in a stratified the- ory of actualization.

This article offers a philosophical reinterpretation of the Einstein field equation, Gµν = Tµν, not as a fundamental law or dynamical identity, but as a condition of structural equilibrium between two emergent projections: the spacetime geometry and the energy-momentum distribution. We propose that both Gµν and Tµν arise from a deeper tensorial field Aµν(x, t∗ ), defined over a non-metric ontological base. The standard Einstein equation is then reframed as a limiting case of a more general condition: Gµν[g] + Cµν[A] = Tµν[A], where Cµν[A] is introduced as a co-tension tensor quantifying the residual imbalance between the geometrical and material projections. This perspective allows us to reconceive field equations not as metaphysically primitive laws, but as equilibrium constraints expressing internal structural compatibility. The implications for the ontology of spacetime, the status of field equations, and the nature of physical law are discussed in a structural realist framework.

Quantum field theory (QFT) remains the most successful theoretical framework in modern physics, yet its foundational ontology is contested. This article identifies a source of persistent ambiguity: the conflation of distinct functional roles under the concept of a “field.” To clarify this, it introduces a structural typology distinguishing three types of fields—interaction, projection, and actualization fields—each corresponding to a distinct role in the layered architecture of physical theories. The framework is applied to interpret foundational phenomena such as the quantum vacuum, the emergence of spacetime geometry, and the status of gauge symmetry. Rather than proposing a metaphysical unification, the typology offers a conceptual scaffold for disaggregating theoretical functions in QFT. The result is a clearer understanding of field ontology that avoids premature collapse of functional distinctions.

This article proposes a reformulation of the ontological status of the spacetime metric within a stratified framework of physical structure. Rather than treating gμν as a fundamental entity, we argue that it should be interpreted as a projection Πgeo(A) conditionally defined from a more primitive dynamical field A(x) over a differentiable manifold (M, C∞). We examine several physical formalisms, Palatini gravity, causal set theory, and topological field theories, that support this non-metric starting point, and show that general relativity can be viewed as a regime of stabi- lized projection coherence. In this framework, the Einstein field equations become a compatibility condition between co-emergent projections of geometry and matter. We conclude by exploring im- plications for background independence, structural realism, and quantum gravity, where geometry is no longer a foundational backdrop but the codified result of dynamic field stabilization.

We propose a structural account of consciousness in which subjective presence arises not as a substance, emergent property, or representational function, but as a transient regime of local constraint equilibrium. A system is conscious, in this view, when the convergence of multistratal constraints reaches a metastable peak sufficient to sustain a unified and autonomous mode of stabilization. Consciousness does not persist in timeit becomes structurally effective at points where stabilization holds. This framework reinterprets presence as actualization and offers a novel interface between mind, time, and physics.

Abstract We present a functional quantization scheme for a symmetric tensor field defined on a differentiable temporal base without metric structure. By replacing the Hilbert space formalism with a functional integral over admissible configurations of the field, we show that quantum phenomena (interference, decoherence, measurement) emerge as statistical effects of dynamically stabilized configurations. This framework offers a rigorous alternative to operator-based quantum mechanics, without invoking background geometry, and recovers classical structures in appropriate asymptotic limits.

This article proposes a conceptual reformulation of black hole interiors grounded in a field-theoretic model of ontological saturation. In contrast to the standard geometrical paradigm, where singularities mark the breakdown of spacetime structure, the present approach treats geometry itself as a regime of local projectability from a more fundamental saturated field. Within this framework, the transition from a geometric regime to a saturated regime provides a natural reinterpretation of black hole horizons, not as causal boundaries, but as the limits of projective stability. Evaporation is understood not as an escape from a singularity, but as a progressive desaturation and re-projectability of the underlying field. We explore the ontological consequences of this model, including the rejection of metric substantivalism, the possibility of structured regimes without geometry, and a dynamic stratification of physical reality. Comparison is made with competing approaches, such as loop quantum gravity, causal sets, remnant models, and firewalls. This framework suggests that black holes may offer a window into the failure of geometry as a descriptive regime, without requiring quantization of spacetime itself.

This article introduces a modal-tensed logic of actualization, grounded in a processual and non-metrical ontology of the real. Classical modal logics evaluate truth across pre-constituted possible worlds, treating modality as extensional and symmetric. In contrast, we propose that modality arises from the internal dynamics of stabilization within a field of tensions: configurations become possible, effective, or actual according to their capacity to resolve constraints. The logic defines five operators, present actualization, past trace, future projection, structural possibility, and necessity, governed by axioms encoding irreversibility, fragility, and asymmetrical transition. We provide a semantic model based on dynamically accessible configurations with intensity-based stabilization. A case study in quantum measurement illustrates how actualization captures the transition from superposition to definite outcome without invoking collapse. This framework reconceptualizes modality, temporality, and ontology as emergent from internal dynamics rather than imposed from external metaphysical structures. It offers new perspectives on metaphysical logic and the foundations of physics.

The term “complex system” permeates contemporary science yet suffers from deep ontological ambiguity. This paper argues that complex systems do not exist as onto- logically discrete entities. Instead, what persists in empirical domains are regimes of constraint stabilization, relational patterns without identity or causal closure. We cri- tique the reification of emergence and propose a structural realist alternative centered on constrained coherence. We conclude by outlining the implications of this framework for modeling practice, scientific realism, and metaphysical parsimony.

This paper proposes a structural and stratified ontology grounded in the distinction between existence and being. Against both classical substance metaphysics and contemporary metaphys- ical deflationism, we argue that reality is not constituted by entities but by fields of actualization structured by constraints. We introduce a framework in which ontological differentiation emerges through dynamic processes of stabilization, without presupposing a metric or object-based sub- stratum. The paper articulates three key levels, pure existence, admissible tension-resolving structures, and individuated configurations, and develops a logic of actualization based on this stratification. Drawing on insights from quantum theory, modal logic, and metaphysical struc- turalism, we show how this model accounts for indeterminacy, emergence, and plural ontological commitments within a unified theoretical architecture. The result is a conservative but non- reductive ontology, compatible with scientific realism and modal structuralism, while avoiding ontological inflation and empirical reification.

This article proposes a conservative model of ontological stratification grounded in the distinction between a field of admissibility (N₀) and a domain of differentiated instantiations (N₁). Against modal inflationism and logical permissivism, we argue that ontological possibility must be constrained not by syntactic coherence but by structural compatibility with the internal architecture of existence. Logical possibility is a necessary but insufficient condition for being. What can exist is not merely what avoids contradiction, but what coheres within the grammar of admissibility structured by N₀. Entities are thus not primitives but projectional resolutions, stable differentiations emerging from structurally admissible configurations. This stratified view reframes metaphysics as the study of admissibility structures, rather than as a catalogue of entities or a speculative extension of empirical science. By grounding modal discourse in ontological structure, the model preserves metaphysical ambition while avoiding speculative inflation. The paper concludes by advocating for a recalibrated metaphysical practice: one focused on tracing the internal constraints of being, rather than mapping the conceptual space of logical construction.

This article argues for the reestablishment of philosophy generalis as the structural framework of intelligibility, rather than as a subordinate or interpretative discourse. Against the backdrop of disciplinary fragmentation and scientific naturalism, it proposes a stratified ontological hierarchy in which philosophy, metaphysics, and physics occupy distinct but interrelated roles. Central to this argument is the concept of the ontological algorithm: not a computational mechanism, but a structural framework that defines the admissibility conditions for conceptual coherence across domains. Drawing from recent developments in physics and metaphysics, the paper emphasizes the need for a philosophical architecture that accounts for the projective stabilization of intelligibility without collapsing into speculative absolutism. It critiques scientistic reductionism and positions philosophy not as a producer of positive content, but as the organizing grammar of ontological possibility. Ultimately, the article defends a conservative yet rigorous view of philosophy as the reflexive limit of rationality — the structural condition under which both metaphysical and empirical knowledge gain legibility.