Evoluit M.

For centuries, science was considered as something radically different from religion. Yet, the foundations of true science are deeply religious in nature. This paper seeks to show how religion is the only foundation needed for the formulation of scientific theories, since it provides the core principles on which the building of exact sciences is based upon. Our need to understand the cosmos and our faith in us being able to do so, are the main prerequisites for conducting science; prerequisites that are derived from our belief in us being the sons of God and, thus, being able to read His mind. From its birth on 7 March 1277 up to today, science seems to be the only logical attitude of religious people towards the unknown cosmos.

The idea of science being the best – or the only – way to reach the truth about our cosmos has been a major belief of modern civilization. Yet, science has grown tall on fragile legs of clay. Every scientific theory uses axioms and assumptions that by definition cannot be proved. This poses a serious limitation to the use of science as a tool to find the truth. The only way to search for the latter is to redefine the former to its original glory. In the days well before Galileo and Newton, science and religion were not separated. They worked together to discover the truth and while the latter had God as its final destination, the former had God as its starting point. Science is based on the irrational (unproven) belief that the world is intelligible along many other assumptions. This poses a serious limitation to science that can only be overcome if we accept the irrationality of the cosmos. The motto “Credo quia absurdum” holds more truth than one can ever realize at first glance. There is nothing logical in logic, whereas there is deep wisdom in the irrational. For while the former tries to build castles on moving sand, the latter digs deep inside the depths of existence itself in order to build on the most concrete foundations that there can be: the cosmos itself. The only way forward is backwards. Backwards to a time when religion led the quest for knowledge by accepting what we cannot know, rather than trying to comprehend what we do not. Science was anyway based on that in the first place.

This paper proposes Translational Ontology, a meta-ontological framework investigating the formal conditions under which ontological description is possible at all. Rather than advancing a new first-order inventory of what exists, the framework shifts focus to the structural constraints presupposed by any ontological claim. The central thesis is that translation, understood in a formal and non-linguistic sense, is a necessary condition of describability. What is described can never fully coincide with its description. From this starting point, the paper introduces interconnected concepts: Qualions as minimal units of describability, Response Fields as loci of interaction, Translation Resistance as the formal impossibility of complete identity, and Homeostatic Regression as a dynamic constraint preserving stability without teleology. The notion of an Infinite Phase grounds distinction itself as a pre-distinct transcendental condition. Shared Qualion Fields and Dual-Mode Existence explain hierarchical organisation while avoiding reductionism and strong emergentism. The framework is applied to dissolve the mind–body problem by reframing it as a category error arising from the conflation of descriptive modes with ontological kinds. Situated in dialogue with Kantian transcendental philosophy, process thought, and East Asian relational traditions, Translational Ontology offers a systematic account of why relational and non-substantialist ontologies recur across philosophical contexts. The result is not a new metaphysics of being, but a metaontology of describability. This paper is a conceptual preprint and does not present an empirical or testable theory.