Jean-Louis Boucon

Ce texte propose une ontologie originale, l’Ontologie des Connaissances (OdC), centrée sur la notion de clôture comme principe fondateur de la signification et de la temporalité. L’auteur illustre cette thèse à travers l’exemple des systèmes de troubleshooting bayésiens (TSIB), où les causes et effets ne sont pas des réalités préexistantes, mais des singularités émergentes produites par une nécessité opérationnelle supérieure (ex. : « Les camions circulent »). L’OdC postule que chaque régime de sens (bulle sémantique) est clos sur lui-même, générant une sémantique et une temporalité propres, incommensurables avec celles des niveaux supérieurs ou inférieurs. Le sujet-connaissant n’est pas un observateur neutre, mais un processus d’En-mesure : une activité constitutive qui engendre à la fois le monde objectivé et sa propre clôture, sans fondement extérieur. Le texte réinterprète le théorème d’incomplétude de Gödel : l’impossibilité pour un système de se saisir entièrement n’est pas un défaut, mais la marque d’une pluralité ontologique radicale. Chaque singularité (sujet, particule, système technique) produit son propre temps et son sens comme effets de sa clôture, sans partage possible avec d’autres régimes. L’objectivation scientifique, loin d’accéder à une réalité absolue, ne capture que l’extension des singularités, laissant leur intension — leur mode d’être propre — hors de portée. Cette ontologie invite à une modestie épistémologique : notre monde n’est qu’une clôture parmi d’autres, et l’altérité (humaine, vivante, matérielle) ne peut être réduite à notre régime de mesure. En conclusion, l’OdC dessine une pluralité de clôtures incommensurables, où chaque singularité est à la fois granule et granulation, sans hiérarchie ni fondement ultime. La pensée doit alors apprendre à habiter cette dispersion, non comme un manque, mais comme la condition même de la rencontre avec l’autre.

This text proposes an original ontology, the Ontology of Knowledge (OdC), centered on the notion of closure as the founding principle of meaning and temporality. The author illustrates this thesis through the example of Bayesian troubleshooting systems (TSIB), where causes and effects are not pre-existing realities, but emergent singularities produced by a higher operational necessity (e.g., "Trucks keep moving"). The OdC posits that each regime of meaning (semantic bubble) is closed in on itself, generating its own semantics and temporality, incommensurable with those of higher or lower levels. The knowing subject is not a neutral observer, but a process of En-measurement: a constitutive activity that engenders both the objectified world and its own closure, without any external foundation. The text reinterprets Gödel’s incompleteness theorem: the impossibility for a system to grasp itself entirely is not a flaw, but the mark of a radical ontological plurality. Each singularity (subject, particle, technical system) produces its own time and meaning as effects of its closure, without any possible foundation from another regime. Scientific objectification, far from accessing an absolute reality, captures only the extension of singularities, leaving their intension—their own mode of being—beyond reach. This ontology invites epistemological modesty: our world is but one closure among others, and otherness (human, living, material) cannot be reduced to our system of measurement. In conclusion, the OdC outlines a plurality of incommensurable closures, where each singularity is simultaneously a granule and granulation, without hierarchy or ultimate foundation. Thought must then learn to inhabit this dispersion, not as a lack, but as the very condition of encountering the other.

In that new issue 2 appendices have been added : 1) about fractal hierarchy of attractors 2) about emergence of the knowing-subject and meaning. The paper integrates Simondon’s theory of individuation with the Ontology of Knowledge (OK), modeling reality as a field of conditional probabilities. Within this probabilistic ontology, singularities are quasi-closed structures. Boucon introduces the subject-singularity, an achronic field, whose self-enclosure imposes "normalization" constraints on the internal structures triggering emergence of individuation and meaning, that is of the knowing-subject. Analogy with Large Language Models (LLMs), illustrates how internal probabilistic structures can generate stable, time-like dynamics without external temporality. Meaning emerges not as representation but as the performative structure of individuation itself. Existence is thus relational and probabilistic, defined as coherence within a closed singularity rather than an external absolute. A formal constant links internal stability of being to its transductive changes, suggesting an intrinsic temporality of being. Ultimately, time, meaning, and selfhood arise as emergent effects of an achronic self-organization within the subject-singularity.

The text “The Ontology of Knowledge, Logic, Arithmetic, Set Theory, and Geometry” by Jean-Louis Boucon explores a deeply philosophical interpretation of knowledge, its logical structure, and the foundational elements of mathematical and scientific reasoning. Here’s an overview condensed by an AI of the key themes and ideas, summarized into a quite general conceptual structure. These two pages are instructive on their own, but their main purpose is to facilitate the reading of the entire article, allowing the reader to situate in the coherence of the whole both the meaning and the usefulness of each proposed idea.

I must admit that my writing is sometimes a challenge to read. So I asked help from an AI to do this summary expecting that it will give an easily understandable view on Ontology of Knowledge and from this general understanding help the reader to read the original papers. Jean-Louis Boucon's work on the "ontology of knowledge" explores the complex nature of reality, meaning, and the process of knowing. Boucon challenges traditional dichotomies in philosophy and science, presenting a coherent framework where the knowing subject and the world are intertwined aspects of a single dynamic reality. His ideas provide a solid foundation for exploring ontological and epistemological questions, including the interpretation of quantum mechanics as well as the proper integration of the knowing-subject in the block-universe of Relativity.

Knowledge of the subject only ever speaks to the subject himself and of nothing more than the subject himself. And yet, when due to their mode of emergence, objects of this knowledge seem to occupy part of a space (whatever it may be) which would contain them, it is tempting for the subject to give this space the name of Reality. The conventional western philosophies (and science) gave in to this temptation. They came to distinguish the Subject {place-of-the-mind} from the Reality {place-of-the-objects} whereas Reality is only the "objectified" or rather "objectivized" aspect of knowledge of the subject. From this artificial distinction followed a great confusion, a dispute that lasted for centuries, and still does, between different -isms with infinitesimal differences, from which the most influential parties emerge victorious each at his turn. In reaction to this confusion a "pivotal" re-orientation is suggested, considering the way objects of knowledge emerge and are organized, not in correlation with objects of Reality but with the subject for himself and knowledge for itself. For this re-orientation the OK proposes to transcend the subject's mind to reveal its logical principles. That's the specific subject I would like to delve into here : the transcendence of meaning. This is necessary for understanding the OK and could be beneficial to “mental health counseling”.

The knowing subject does not think nature, he is thought of nature and of himself, not of a world which would be other to him but of a world of which he is the meaning. This meaning emerges by separation of his own individuation into participating singularities. Then the question, on the epistemic level, is how the fundamental concepts of mathematics and physics emerge, including the One, the quantified, the continuous, the more and the less etc.. what relationship is there between the (objectified) meaning of these concepts and their real nature in the subject?

In a pure probabilistic field (without space, time, or matter), the term <Probability of S> would be empty for lack of support. Now, due to its infinite combinatorics, this field necessarily resolves itself into nested structures of singular modes of order. A singularity S1 is defined as a self-reflexive core (P(S1|S1) = 1), probabilistically closed (Σ P(Si| S1) = 1). Then the conditional relation P(S1|S2) does not describe a link between given entities: it is postulated as primitive reality in which S1 and S2 are emergent singularities. The subject is a singularity in that structure. The closure of the knowing-subject 'I' and its granulation into singularities of non-zero probability are necessary preconditions for meaning: it is through 'I's internal resolution that S1 and S2 singularize themselves and that P(S1|S2) acquires meaning. Without this resolution under the constraint of its unity 'I' would be unspeakable. The world is not "in itself" : it is morphogenesis, it is the sense that emerges within the singularity of the subject, a representation generated by a system closed upon itself. The real does not have meaning, it « gives meaning to itself ». This circularity is not a flaw, it is productive: the probabilistic field has measure only through its singularities, and these exist because the field complexity resolves into singularities.

According to the Ontology of Knowledge (OK) reality is unspeakable, it is neither subject to form nor to time (see ref. OdC). The OK does not claim to tell an ontological truth (which would be unspeakable) but to propose an ontological model deepened in comparison to the common sense model. Relativity proposes the model of reality designated as the block-universe which is not in time but which contains time. Relativity is a scientific theory which abstains as much as possible from ontological pretension. In the absence of a passing time, the same questions of necessity and indeterminacy arise for both theories although in different contexts. It is by comparing these two theories that we will try to understand the place left to indeterminacy in the block-universe of Relativity.

In this article, we would like to clarify the concept of singularity-subject according to the Ontology of Knowledge (OK), not with the idea of contradicting but with that of completing the Kantian vision of transcendental Subject. We would nevertheless like to show how Kant's lack of a true transcendence of the subject limits and disorients the development of his thought. We would finally like to trace some tracks towards new ontological (and scientific) options that the OK makes possible beyond those which the Kantian critique entailed.

For the OK, there is in fact no opposition between the logical and the material or the spiritual: reality is a formless logical substance. Representation is morphogenesis and the terms 'material' and 'spiritual' only denote categories of morphogenesis. Our constant experience shows us that spiritual and material interact. The border between understanding and becoming, between meaning and act, which seems trivial to us, is elusive when we try to approach it. For example: when the subject follows the object of his attention with his gaze, where to draw the line between material and spiritual? Representation is morphogenesis and the OK uses the term 'horizon', not to separate the material from the spiritual, but to distinguish the formless from the representable, the unspeakable from the speakable. For the OK the speakable is not 'something else' than the unspeakable, it is a mode of order: The rainbow is not 'an other thing' than rain, light, sun, the walk that brought me here and now, my sense of vision, my culture etc... all this unspeakable set of logical interdependencies from which emerges, for me subject, the meaning of the rainbow. And above all, this horizon is not 'in my mind'. The ordaining of the unspeakable is not carried out 'by my understanding'. The emergence of the meaning from the unspeakable logic is not happening 'in' and 'by' my mind. On the contrary, it is a process of pure logic*, a progressive aglomeration of interdependance, which makes the subject emerge as a representation of the world and of his own existence. The logical transcends the Existing. This is the key to understanding this article: We have not left the Garden of Eden. The representation is not 'overhanging' the world, it is 'the' world. Representation is not "grasping form" but "morphogenesis", not as "attribution of form" but as "necessary ordering mode of logical reality". Common sense (including science and logic) does not represent reality, it emerges from it in the form of modes of order of reality, of logic. My representation of this white stone is not 'something else' than the unspeakable logic from which the meaning of 'white stone' emerges for me, it is only a mode of order. There are no "other things" than the things which represent themselves in me and which are modes of order. The Existing is representation. Existence is a mode of order *. The amorphous logical "substance" precedes (transcends) its representation. The logical transcends logic.

The deterministic or probabilistic laws of our representations and our science do not link what “is” to what “will be” but what “I know” to what “I could know”. Consistency is not a predicate on the physical laws of the world but on the logical laws of Meaning. If you cannot convince yourself of that. If you want to believe that the Softmatter of the Meaning cannot be more consistent than the Hardmatter of the physical world. Think again......and try to answer this question : Why would it be less unlikely for a physical world to evolve from the big bang to individuated knowing persons than for an amorphous interdependence to assemble (logically) individuated representations of the world?

The Ontology of Knowledge (OK) states: The laws of the world cannot be distinguished from the laws by which representation emerges from intensional thought. The laws of a physical world in vis-à-vis are not necessary. The forms of the world resulting from these laws cannot be distinguished from the laws of thought. They have no object. (see appendix I) OK seems to make of Knowledge, the substance from which the subject gives rise for himself to a representation of the world and himself. The OK is realistic in that it states that there is a reality, but it also states clearly that the Reality is informal and that there is no being in reality, no other beings than those created by the subject in representation. That justifies the title of this article: Would the knowing subject be, in fact, the only being in the world, all other beings being only representation? While the Cogito guarantees the Existence of the "I" that enunciates it, is there no other Me than this "I"? As much as our mind can consent to the idea that objects and material facts are only representations, including the atoms of our own body, as much as it seems absurd to us, paradoxical, contrary to the evidence of every moment, the idea that "I" would be the one and only knowing subject. The first part of this article proposes, by a clarification of concepts and terms, to answer specifically to the question of the existence of other “I's” The second part will try to widen the spectrum of our reflection to study, within the conceptual framework of the OK, the possibility of a supra-human thought/knowledge. Of a “Us”

"The earth revolved around the sun long before man and all conscious beings appeared on its surface." Yes really, how could I imagine otherwise? The problem is precisely in the : "How could I imagine?" The difficulty is indeed twofold: 1) Whenever we represent the world without our presence, whether it is the earth a hundred million years ago or a Cartesian space only flanked by its 3 axes, we are in reality at the very center of this representation. 2) Nothing can be said about the world that is not previously knowledge (s) having made sense. Not only can the knowing subject in no way extract himself from his representation of the world, but he does not have any concept of representation which is not subject to the preliminary laws of formation of meaning. It follows that the proposition "reality has form" is unprovable. We will not come back to the idea according to which time and space are “something” in which reality would bathe, something “in addition” to reality and which therefore escapes this question of form. 1) the necessary presence of the subject at the centre of any representation, 2) the precedence of the laws of formation of meaning over meaning and therefore over form.

[issue 20211210] Qbism (quantum bayesism) is a philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) that places the agent and its expectations at the heart of theory. The QBists advocate a "subjectivist" interpretation of probabilities that allows to understand the quantum laws of Born and to eliminate certain enigmas of interpretation of the QM going "beyond" the interpretation of Copenhagen. The Ontology of Knowledge (OK) is in agreement with the main ideas of the Qbism. For the OdC indeed: -The agent is the focal point of the representation -Representation is specific to the agent -There are no "states of the world" but only "states of knowledge" -There is no probability of evolution of the "state of the world" but only probabilities, for the subject, of evolution of his Knowledge. -These probabilities lead to the future actions and experiences of the agent. The aim of this article is to propose, according to the OdC, ways for an extension of the explanatory power of the QBism.

Despite the efforts undertaken to separate scientific reasoning and metaphysical considerations, despite the rigor of construction of mathematics, these are not, in their very foundations, independent of the modalities, of the laws of representation of the world. The OdC shows that the logical Facts Exist neither more nor less than the Facts of the world which are Facts of Knowledge. Mathematical facts are representation facts. The primary objective of this article is to integrate the subject into mathematics as a mode of emergence of meaning and then to evaluate its consequences.

Objective The relations between thought and reality are studied in many fields of philosophy and science. Examples include ontology and metaphysics in general, linguistics, neuroscience and even mathematics. Each one has its postulates, its language, its methods and its own constraints. It would be unreasonable, however, for them to ignore each other. In the pages that follow we will try to identify areas of proximity between the ideas of contemporary philosophers of language and those issued mainly by Ontology of Knowledge but also by mathematics and neuroscience. We will try to take advantage of the clarity and the perfect structuring of the lecture « La philosophie contemporaine du langage » (the contemporary philosophy of language) given by Professor Denis Vernant. We will make use of this lecture, both for the ideas presented and as a reference process. The goal of this article is to bring out, through a benevolent confrontation, new ideas for the benefit of knowledge in general.

We can only know what determines us as being and by the fact that it determines us as being. Our knowledge is therefore logically limited to what determines us as being. Since representation is defined as the act that makes knowledge dicible, our representation is logically limited to what dynamically determines us as being. Our representation is included in our becoming. Nothing that we represent, no infinite, can exceed the mere necessity of our becoming. The world, my physical being and my consciousness are subsumed by the necessity of my becoming. We know nothing but “we become” To the question "Is there anything else to know?" we can give no logical answer Summary: Reality is pure logical interdependence, immanent, formless, unspeakable. Logos is a principle of order in this interdependence. Individuation is the necessary asymptote of any instance of the Logos. Each knowing subject is Individuation, a mode of order among infinites of infinites of possible modes of order. Everything that appears to the subject as Existing participates in his Individuation. This convergence into Individuation defines a perspective that gives meaning. The subject is representation. It is in this representation that exist the subject, objects and laws of the world. Without subject there are no objects, no laws, no framework. The representation is not isomorphism but morphogenesis. The physical world and the Spirit have the same logical nature: they are categories of representation. The representation is animated because meaning is an Act. Representation is limited by a horizon of meaning. Below this horizon the subject represents the universe and itself. Beyond this horizon there is no prevailing space, time or form. The predicate expresses, below the horizon of meaning, a necessity whose source is beyond this horizon, unfathomable. The OK is neither materialism nor idealism and frees itself from any psychological preconceptions. The OK does not propose an "other reality" than that described by common sense or science, but another mode of representation. The OK is compatible with the current state of science, while offering new interpretive avenues. The OK differs from ontic structural realism (OSR) in various ways: Just like being, the relationship is representation, The knowing subject is present in any representation, the real is non-founded.