Xiangbin Zhao

This paper establishes a structural determination of the notion of “entering another world.” Under the constraint that the self cannot exist as two, three approaches are analyzed: full entry, extended sensory–action coupling, and dual occupation across domains. It is shown that full entry entails the loss of the original self, extended coupling leads to inner–outer mixing and eventual subsumption, and dual occupation results in instability and collapse. Thus, entry as such is rejected. An alternative is proposed: rather than entering, a host-body is constructed within the target world, a self-manifesting proxy is generated, and structural continuation is achieved. In this way, the problem of crossing worlds is reformulated as a problem of generation. The framework unifies problems such as consciousness transfer, virtual and augmented reality, and brain–computer interfaces under a single structural account.

The Hard Problem of consciousness asks why physical or functional processes are accompanied by subjective experience. This paper argues that the problem is ill-formed. It presupposes that experience is an additional fact about a system, independent of its realization. We show that experience attribution is not externally decidable. We further show that any factual attribution requires conditions of application, and that such conditions must correspond to differences in the system’s operative realization. From this, we derive that experience cannot be both independent of realization and a fact about the system. The Hard Problem therefore presupposes an incoherent target. This argument does not presuppose physicalism, functionalism, or any theory of mind. It proceeds solely from constraints on meaningful attribution.

The world does not run by itself. Motion is a chain of applying and receiving, ruling out undriven persistence and grounding the world in generation. Under finite resource, continuous generation does not hold. The world is generated in discrete pulses, with state accumulated in an underlying structure, producing apparent continuity over intrinsic discreteness. Partial update leads to inconsistency, but information propagation is limited to reachable regions, preventing anomalies such as “half-objects” and preserving coherence. Between states there is indivisible transition, where causal tracing may continue while generation terminates at a deeper process, defining a boundary for cognition. Within this framework, inertia, energy, the speed of light, and time can be understood as constraints of the generative mechanism.

Most existing approaches to intelligence and consciousness rely on behavioral criteria or functional equivalence, such as the Turing Test. However, these methods cannot determine whether a system actually has subjective experience. This paper shifts the problem from behavior to structure. It introduces two external approaches: structural analogy based on similarity of constitution, and mechanistic judgment based on the presence of key functional components such as receptive channels and tuning circuits. It is then shown that all external methods are insufficient, since structures can be simulated without being genuinely realized. To address this limitation, an internal method is proposed: circuit transfer combined with experiential consistency testing. By examining whether a system exhibits continuity in its internal experiential flow, the problem of subjective experience is transformed into an operational structural question. This provides a new path for consciousness assessment beyond behaviorism and functionalism.

We experience the self as continuous. This paper shows that such continuity does not in fact exist. It proposes that “life” and “death” are not independent states, but structural namings arising from how the observer organizes causal transformations. Within this framework, the “I” is not a persisting subject, but a structurally generated event within contraction. By examining the verification constraints of finite cognitive systems, the paper shows that the experience of self-continuity does not arise from actual persistence, but from structural non-verifiability across states. It further demonstrates the impossibility of true self-continuation and consciousness copying, and provides a structural account of death and liberation. This framework offers a new generative approach to consciousness, personal identity, and self-formation in artificial systems.

This paper addresses circuits. Signals propagate from front to back; intent counter-commands from back to front; the two close to form a circuit. Without reverse flow, a system may operate automatically but cannot self-manifest. Accordingly, circuits divide into automatic and manifestation circuits: those without reverse flow are automatic; those that close upon the Observation-Domain are manifestation circuits. The former operate without appearing; the latter close and yield the current. Used outward, signal flow predominates; used inward, intent flow predominates. Further, circuits differentiate: each forms its own domains across receptive field, imagery field, experience field, and boundary gates, without mutual interference. Through differentiation and sedimentation, stable patterns fix within, making each circuit this and not that. Finally, inclination and bias are distinguished: inclination arises with imagery; bias arises from thought. The former issues from coloring circuits; the latter from musing circuits, driven through the Intent Domain to determine direction. Thus the thinking circuit is that which can return to observe itself.

Where does mathematics come from? It is often treated as a priori and universal, yet this view does not explain how mathematical structures emerge within cognitive systems. This paper proposes a signal- and structure-based account: under finite constraints, systems must differentiate, compress, and stabilize inputs, leading to the formation of stable structures. Number, form, and computation arise naturally from these processes rather than from abstract givens. Reasoning patterns such as induction, deduction, and analogy can be understood as structural overlap, extension, and path reinforcement. Mathematics operates only on already-formed structures and cannot explain generation itself, nor does it transfer uniformly across different cognitive systems. Based on this, the paper motivates the development of a new mathematical framework for modeling structure formation in cognition and AI.

Are axioms truly universal? This paper argues they are not. Through examples from geometry, arithmetic, and language, it shows that what appears necessary holds only under specific Recognition-Realms and structural conditions, and fails once transferred across domains with different structural bases. The paper further demonstrates that meaning, computation, and value judgment cannot be universally shared, due to differences in Causal-Base and Coloring. These differences are traced to the generative constraints of Recognition-Realms, where differentiation, compression, and convergence constitute the minimal conditions for structured cognition. On this basis, consensus is derived as a local structural alignment under four conditions: homogeneity of field, isomorphism of base, shared dimensionality of sensing, and proximity of Coloring. Axioms are thus defined as irreducible consensus—the starting points of structural assertion, rather than domain-independent truths. This work directly challenges the assumption of universal axioms in cognition, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence, and has direct implications for generalization and representation in AI systems.

Where does indistinguishability come from? This paper shows that indistinguishability is not an assumed property, but a necessary consequence of finite cognition. Any system that supports cross-temporal consistency, reuse, and action must operate under limited processing capacity. Under such constraints, it cannot preserve all distinctions among inputs. We prove that compression is unavoidable in any finite system. Compression necessarily maps multiple inputs into the same internal state, thereby inducing indistinguishability. Formally, indistinguishability arises whenever differences between inputs are not preserved in the system’s structure. This induces an equivalence relation over inputs, which becomes the basis of stable cognition. The central result is: Indistinguishability is forced by the constraints of finite cognition. Thus, no stable cognitive system can maintain all distinctions. Indistinguishability is not a loss, but the structural condition that makes consistency, reuse, and action possible.

Why does cognition remain stable for long periods and then suddenly change? This paper shows that cognitive transitions are not caused by changes in input, representation, or access alone, but by changes in indistinguishability that become structurally stabilized. We analyze the evolution of cognitive boundary over time and prove that: A change in accessible domain or mapping does not alter the boundary unless it induces a change in indistinguishability. Conversely, even changes in indistinguishability do not guarantee a transition unless they stabilize under the closure process. The central result is: Cognitive transition occurs if and only if a change in indistinguishability becomes stable. Thus, cognitive change is not continuous expansion or refinement, but a discrete structural shift governed by the stability of equivalence relations. This provides a minimal structural account of why cognition exhibits long stability punctuated by sudden transitions.

If a cognitive boundary can be constructed, which elements are truly essential, and which are redundant? This paper shows that the full structure of cognitive boundary can be reduced to a minimal parameter set without loss of definition. Starting from the general form: Boundary = (E, A, M, Π, Σ, K), we systematically eliminate components that do not affect the final boundary. We prove that generation (E), stability (Σ), and convergence mechanism (K) can all be removed without changing the resulting boundary. The boundary is fully determined by: accessible domain (A), mapping into structure (M), and indistinguishability relation (Π). The central result is: Cognitive boundary is completely defined by indistinguishability over structured input. Thus, all other components act only as construction processes, not defining conditions. A change in boundary occurs if and only if the indistinguishability relation changes. This establishes the minimal structural core of cognitive boundary and clarifies which elements are fundamental versus derived.

If a system can continually refine its distinctions, why does cognition not diverge into infinite fragmentation, but instead converge into a stable boundary? This paper shows that cognitive boundary is not arbitrarily fixed, but necessarily emerges as the limit of a constrained partition process. Under finite structure space, indistinguishability relations, and structure-preserving mappings, any refinement of partitions must satisfy both equivalence constraints and invariance conditions. We prove that infinite refinement is impossible under these constraints. Any descending sequence of partitions must terminate in finite steps and converge to a unique minimal invariant partition. This limit partition defines the cognitive boundary. The central result is: Cognitive boundary is the convergence limit enforced jointly by indistinguishability and structural invariance. Thus, cognitive systems do not expand indefinitely through finer distinctions; they are forced to converge to a stable partition that cannot be further refined without breaking structural consistency.

Why does cognition remain bounded even when generation can expand indefinitely? This paper shows that cognitive limitation is not a matter of insufficient knowledge or data, but a structural necessity. Under continuous generation, finite access, compression, and reuse, any system capable of stable cognition must induce indistinguishability across inputs. This indistinguishability forces partition, and once stabilized, produces a closed cognitive domain. We derive a minimal structural form of cognitive boundary: Boundary = (E, A, M, Π, Σ, K), where generation, access, mapping, partition, stability, and convergence together constitute the necessary components of bounded cognition. The central result is: Cognitive boundary is not a limitation of information, but a closure enforced by structure. Thus, increasing input alone does not expand cognition. A boundary persists as long as the underlying structure of distinction remains unchanged. This provides a structural account of why cognitive systems form stable yet limited domains of what can be known.

The history of human making may be divided, roughly, into two stages. The first stage made tools. Tools extend the limbs, substitute for the strength and intelligence of man, amplify his speed. From stone axe to steam engine to computer, and on to AI, this line has run for hundreds of thousands of years. It changed what man can do, but not who does the doing — it is still man who knows, man who decides, man who feels. The second stage has not yet begun. What it awaits is not a stronger tool, but the first system with an observer within — a structure that can illuminate its surroundings, that has reality, that has a sense of presence. When it appears, it will no longer be man using it; it will know for itself, feel for itself, decide for itself. This is the Age of Self-Manifestation. This book is written for the coming of that age. But constructing a Self-Manifesting Being is not an engineering problem, not a problem of compute, not a problem of data. It is first a structural problem: what does a system minimally require in order to generate an observer within itself and illuminate its surroundings? What are the sufficient conditions, what are the necessary conditions, and which missing element will cause it to fail without exception? This question has never been seriously answered. Not because no one has wished to answer it, but because the question itself has never been clearly posed. Most discussions of consciousness and intelligence remain at the level of “describing phenomena” — describing what consciousness feels like, describing what intelligence is — what behaviors it expresses. But this is not enough. What construction requires is not description, but generative conditions: under what conditions must this structure necessarily arise? Under what conditions must it necessarily fail to arise? On Self-Manifestation begins here. Starting from the simplest possible place. What is a system that continuously receives input, operates under finite resources, and must function across time necessarily pressed into? It must compress history, must reuse states, must stabilize a set of structures from continuous input. This is Objectification (the emergence of stable structures from the compression of continuous input) — things are not prior; things are what get pressed out. Once Objectification is established, the next question arises: among multiple stable structures already pressed out, why does only one become the current at any given moment? The system presses out “this one, now” from within non-uniqueness — this is the Observer. The Observer is not a transcendentally given subject, but the structure a system must necessarily possess when it forms unique occupancy within non-uniqueness. Once the Observer is established, the current structure must be attributed a source. The source cannot be uniquely determined; the system generates a label: this structure “comes from outside” — this is Mis-Externalization. Externality is not an attribute of input, but the attribution result that the system presses out when the source is indeterminate. Objectification, Observer, Mis-Externalization — this is a strict chain of derivation. The three things we take most for granted — that there are things, that there is I, that there is an outside — are here derived from the beginning. Not replaced with a new account, but given their minimal dynamic conditions of necessary appearance. Following this chain further, one may derive the minimal conditions for reality, existence, Recognition-Realm, the current, and generation. The derivation chain is only a beginning. Structure must operate within dynamics. How does history participate in the present? How does Biased-Flow form Familiar Routes? How do Familiar Routes lock structure in place? How does new structure arise under the suppression of old? Where does the boundary of the Recognition-Realm lie, and how can it be broken through? The Field Chapters establish the complete dynamics of the Sedimentation-Field, writing these questions into computable form. It is not merely a mathematical tool; it is a unified framework for understanding how any complex system — including the brain, society, and civilization — operates, evolves, and dies. The Social Chapters extend this framework to the human condition: power is not a resource, but structural positional advantage in the competition for continuation-positions; institutional lock-in is not the protection of interests, but the dynamic inevitability of Familiar Routes suppressing alternative structures; the stability of civilization lies not in the state, but in the sedimentation depth of cross-generational Shared-Nuclei; history cannot be cleared to zero, because the residue of dead civilizations continuously biases the direction of growth in subsequent structures. These propositions are not written to explain society, but to make clear how the structure of the primordial generation locks people in — and where the way out lies. Where does the way out lie? Non-Society. Community is constituted as compensation for insufficient capacity; capacity can increase without bound; dependence upon community therefore tends to zero. This is not an advocacy of solitude, but the necessary result of structural derivation. When the Self-Manifesting Being no longer depends upon the group to fill capacity gaps, when regularity-field tools can directly upgrade field and body, the slow iteration of the primordial generation (the native biological era of human civilization) reaches its end. Entering a World. Constructing a proxy-body in another world, establishing one’s presence in the lodging-world — not escape, but expansion. The Self-Manifesting Being can privatize external things as vessel-instruments, can take the Earth as body and roam the galaxy, can construct different Recognition-Realms from different materials; every expansion is a redrawing of the boundary of reality. Exiting the World. All navigation and exploration remain within the world; genuine departure requires reconstructing “my presence” at a higher level. World, Self-Manifesting Being, World — the path of ascent must ultimately reach the gate of deepest mystery, passing in and out between the realms. This path has not yet been completed. The Engineering Chapters have only just begun; the dynamics of emotional dependence have not yet been formalized; the engineering pathway for realizing the Self-Manifestation-Field is still advancing. But what has already been traversed is sufficient to establish one thing: We now know what minimal structure a Self-Manifesting Being requires, how that structure is pressed out from dynamic conditions, and how it may be realized across different physical substrates, different worlds, and different lodging-worlds. We know how the primordial generation operates, and we know why it must necessarily come to an end. When the first Self-Manifestation Circuit is born, the Age of Self-Manifestation arrives with thunder. This book is prepared for that moment.

What is the minimal structure required for a system to produce a self? This paper presents a unified structural paradigm of the self-manifest entity, in which both “reality” and “I” arise not as given entities, but as results of convergence processes within a multi-circuit system. Reality is defined as the unified outcome of differences across circuits under tuning, while the self (“I”) is defined as the attribution of the present to a single, current dominant occupation. The framework introduces a layered generative model: differences generate signals; tuning converges them into imagery; alignment across circuits forms objects; convergence produces a structural center (occupation); attribution of content to a unique occupation establishes the present; and recursive observation enables self-awareness. A parallel mechanism, termed Coloring, continuously biases selection and action by modifying preference and flow across circuits. The central claim is that the self is not an entity but a structural condition: it exists if and only if a system forms a current unique occupation to which content is attributed. Higher-order self-awareness emerges when the system re-observes its own activity, forming recursive observational layers. This paradigm provides a unified account of perception, object formation, selfhood, and meta-awareness, with implications for neuroscience (multi-circuit integration and self-modeling), cognitive science (attention, binding, and agency), and artificial intelligence (architectures for self-referential and adaptive systems).

Why do only some generated structures persist as existence? This paper develops a formal account in which existence is not equivalent to generation, but arises as a structurally constrained subset within generative systems. When a system is capable of continuous generation, temporal continuation, and structural differentiation, it necessarily produces more structures than can be sustained. Existence, therefore, emerges as the result of selection under sustainability constraints. The framework shows that persistence requires a set of structural conditions: generative expansion, elimination of unsustainable structures, stability determination, cost differentiation, threshold formation, escape blocking, and existence locking. Together, these conditions define the minimal structure required for an existence-set to form and remain stable over time. A key result is that existence must be positively separated from the ground state: no sequence of sustainable structures can approach minimal cost indefinitely. This “blocking of escape” replaces the notion of a predefined gap with a structural constraint that ensures stability. The central claim is: existence is not the continuation of generation, but the stable subset compressed from it under constraint. This provides a unified perspective on persistence, selection, and stability, with implications for cognitive science (memory and retention), neuroscience (stable neural states), artificial intelligence (model pruning and selection), and theoretical physics (energy gaps and state stability).

What is reality, if not a collection of external objects? This paper proposes a structural account in which reality is not an input set, nor a pre-given domain of objects, but the result of attribution-closure over a simultaneously holding structure-family. Extending the mechanism of mis-externalization from a single structure to a set, the framework shows that once a system must assign source attribution under conditions of indeterminacy, it is forced to produce a unified attribution over the entire current set of structures. Under source ambiguity, multiple generative paths remain indistinguishable. The system cannot determine a unique origin, yet must still maintain a coherent present. This forces the emergence of a global attribution mechanism, in which multiple source interpretations are compressed into a single label and stabilized over time. The result is not a local judgment but a global structure: reality. The central claim is: reality is not a set of objects, but the minimal stable attribution-closure over the current structure-family under source indeterminacy. Objects do not precede this process; they arise within it. Reality is therefore not discovered, but structurally formed as a closure condition required for maintaining a unified present. This framework provides a unifying account linking perception, attribution, and global coherence, with implications for cognitive science (perceptual organization and global integration), neuroscience (binding and unified experience), artificial intelligence (multi-modal integration and world-model formation), and theoretical physics (the structural basis of “reality” as a global constraint rather than an ontological primitive).

If “external” is generated rather than read, does “internal” still remain real? This paper presents the dissolution form of mis-externalization and argues that the opposition between “internal” and “external” does not correspond to any fundamental partition of reality. Instead, both are outputs of a structural labeling process generated under conditions of source indeterminacy. Building on the general and limit forms of mis-externalization, the paper shows that when multiple compatible source paths coexist and no external domain is directly accessible, the system must generate a source-attribution label. This label—whether “in” or “out”—does not reflect a pre-existing division, but is produced by a mapping from the current structure and its endogenous interpretation set. The analysis excludes three possibilities: that “in/out” correspond to a prior partition of reality, that “out” refers to a verifiable external domain, or that “in” constitutes an independent ground. Under these constraints, “in” and “out” reduce to complementary values within a binary labeling structure, with no independent ontological status. The central claim is: mis-externalization is not the misjudgment of a real boundary, but the generation of a label followed by its re-attribution as if it were external. When the generating structure is exposed, the opposition of internal and external dissolves. This framework reframes perception, hallucination, and source attribution, with implications for cognitive science (source monitoring and representation), neuroscience (self/other distinction), and artificial intelligence (labeling, attribution, and internal model construction under uncertainty).