Matter, Order, and the Emergence of Meaning

An Ontological Inquiry into Interaction, Complexity, and Coherence

ABSTRACT

This essay proposes a unified ontological framework for understanding existence, grounded in a minimal set of intrinsic conditions of Universal Matter. Rather than treating order, life, and consciousness as contingent anomalies or as phenomena requiring external metaphysical supplementation, the essay argues that they are continuous expressions of matter’s internal structure. The central claim is that existence, in any meaningful ontological sense, depends on the simultaneous presence of three fundamental properties: interaction, complexity, and coherence. If any of these properties is absent, existence collapses - not as a theoretical abstraction, but as a structural impossibility.

The framework departs from both classical metaphysics and contemporary explanatory models by rejecting the long-standing division between inert matter and higher-order phenomena such as life, consciousness, and meaning. Instead, matter is treated as an active, self-organizing reality whose behavior, from the earliest moments of the universe to the emergence of reflective consciousness, follows a consistent structural logic. Interaction denotes the capacity of entities to affect and be affected; complexity refers to the organized differentiation of components into structured wholes; and coherence designates the preservation of identity and stability across change. These properties are not introduced as empirical contingencies, but as jointly necessary ontological conditions for persistence at any scale.

From this perspective, the history of the universe is not interpreted as a sequence of accidental thresholds, but as a continuous unfolding of material organization under invariant constraints. Elementary particles, atomic structures, molecular systems, living organisms, and conscious beings are understood as successive levels in a hierarchical architecture of matter, each integrating previous levels while introducing new modes of stability and interaction. The emergence of life does not constitute a rupture with physical law, but a higher-order stabilization of material processes far from equilibrium. Likewise, consciousness is not posited as an immaterial principle or an inexplicable surplus, but as a further intensification of material complexity enabling internal representation, abstraction, and reflection.

Several influential philosophical traditions have attempted to address aspects of this continuity, yet without yielding a fully coherent conceptual picture of reality as a single intelligible process. Substance monism, from Spinoza onward, succeeds in affirming ontological unity but lacks an account of how complexity, emergence, and differentiation are structurally generated. Process philosophy emphasizes becoming and interaction, yet does not articulate a minimal condition of existence capable of grounding stability and persistence across scales. Contemporary approaches to consciousness, including panpsychist and dual-aspect theories associated with thinkers such as David Chalmers and Philip Goff, rightly challenge reductive materialism by foregrounding experience, but leave unresolved how consciousness integrates structurally with matter, law, and organization. As a result, these frameworks, though philosophically significant, do not produce a unified conceptual reality in which matter, life, and consciousness become simultaneously intelligible.

The Elemental Reason departs from these approaches by formulating existence itself as a structural condition rather than a metaphysical presupposition. By treating interaction, complexity, and coherence as jointly necessary and non-substitutable, the framework provides a minimal ontological law applicable to physical, biological, and cognitive domains alike. This law does not explain phenomena by addition - introducing new substances, properties, or realms - but by identifying the conditions under which anything can exist at all. In doing so, it offers a conceptual architecture within which empirical findings from physics, chemistry, biology, and cognitive science become mutually coherent rather than merely juxtaposed.

A central implication of this framework is a reconceptualization of consciousness. Consciousness is neither an epiphenomenon nor an ontological exception, but the point at which Universal Matter acquires the capacity to represent and interpret its own conditions of existence. Consciousness does not stand outside nature; it is nature at a level where its processes become intelligible to themselves. This view dissolves classical dualisms - between subject and object, mind and matter, fact and meaning - without collapsing higher-order phenomena into lower-level descriptions.

Finally, the framework invites a reconsideration of the traditional concept of the divine. Historically, attributes such as order, lawfulness, generativity, and intelligibility have been assigned to a transcendent source external to the material world. Yet these same attributes are demonstrably present within material processes themselves. Rather than asserting an identity between Universal Matter and God, the essay proposes a structural analogy: the properties long attributed to the divine correspond closely to the intrinsic capacities of matter to organize, stabilize, and render itself intelligible. This reframing does not close the theological question, but relocates it from metaphysical transcendence to ontological structure.

By grounding existence in the intrinsic properties of Universal Matter, this essay offers a framework in which scientific explanation and philosophical meaning converge. It neither reduces reality to mechanism nor appeals to external metaphysical guarantees. Instead, it treats intelligibility itself as an emergent but lawful feature of existence. In doing so, The Elemental Reason seeks to provide not merely an explanation of reality, but a coherent conceptual sense of it.

__________________

This essay forms part of a broader philosophical project titled The Elemental Reason, an ongoing inquiry into the ontological conditions of existence, the emergence of complexity, and the place of consciousness within material reality.

While the present text is written to stand independently, it reflects a conceptual framework that will be developed more fully in the forthcoming book The Elemental Reason.

I. THE PROBLEM OF GOD AS AN EXTERNAL ENTITY

The history of philosophical and theological thought is marked by a fundamental assumption that has rarely been subjected to serious scrutiny: that if God exists, He must be separate from matter, situated beyond the physical world, and detached from the processes that constitute empirical reality. This assumption has taken different forms - from the transcendent creator God of classical theology to the timeless regulatory principle found in certain metaphysical systems - but its core remains unchanged: the divine is placed outside that which exists.

This separation is not neutral. It creates an ontological gap between the reality we experience and its presumed source. Matter, within this framework, is reduced to a passive and blind substrate, receiving form, order, and meaning only through the intervention of an external agent. God, in turn, becomes the ultimate explanation precisely because He is not subjected to the same questions that are directed at the physical world.

Yet this philosophical solution suffers from a fundamental weakness: it does not explain order, but displaces the problem. By situating the source of lawfulness outside matter, metaphysical thought avoids the most difficult - and also the most fundamental - question: why does matter itself exhibit an internal tendency toward structure, stability, and organization?

If God is invoked solely to explain why order exists, then it becomes necessary to ask whether order is not already an intrinsic property of material reality. If the laws of nature are universal, stable, and invariant, then they cannot be merely external impositions upon a passive chaos. They must arise from the very structure of what exists.

Here emerges the central tension that this essay seeks to address: is it necessary to conceive of God as an entity detached from matter, or is this separation a historical construct that obstructs a more coherent understanding of reality? And if matter has demonstrated, from the very first moment of its existence, an internal capacity to generate order, complexity, and ultimately consciousness, should the very meaning of what has traditionally been called the “divine” not be re-examined?

II. MATTER AS THE UNIVERSAL SUBSTRATE OF ORDER AND LAW

If we temporarily suspend the assumption of a transcendent source of order, a fundamental fact remains to be examined: from the earliest moments of the universe, matter has not appeared as a chaotic, structureless mass, but as a reality governed by stable and repeatable laws. Within fractions of a second after the Big Bang, elementary particles began to interact according to precise rules now described by fundamental physics. These interactions were not random in the sense of lacking order, but constrained by specific relations, constants, and symmetries that determined which configurations were possible and which were not.

This fact carries significant ontological consequences. If matter were truly passive and formless, one would expect order to be fragile, temporary, or dependent upon continuous external intervention. What is observed in cosmic history, however, is the opposite: the structures that form are stable, the laws that govern them are universal, and the processes that lead from simplicity toward complexity recur across different scales of reality.

The formation of protons and neutrons from quarks, the binding of electrons to nuclei to form atoms, and the subsequent synthesis of heavier elements within stellar interiors constitute a chain of processes that cannot be understood as isolated events. They are expressions of the same structural logic: matter permits only certain forms of organization that are dynamically stable. Each new level of organization does not negate the previous one, but integrates it into a more complex architecture.

A particularly illustrative example of this principle is elementary chemistry. The fact that hydrogen and oxygen combine in a fixed ratio to form water is not the result of arbitrary chance, but a consequence of their electronic structure and of the laws governing electromagnetic interaction. This ratio is not negotiable: altering it would produce a different substance or nothing stable at all. This demonstrates that order is not imposed from outside, but dictated by the internal architecture of matter itself.

From this perspective, the laws of nature should not be understood as abstract rules that “stand above” reality, but as descriptions of how matter necessarily behaves. Law is not something that matter follows; law is the manner in which matter exists. This conceptual shift is of fundamental importance: it renders unnecessary the separation between material reality and an external regulatory principle.

In this sense, Universal Matter can be understood as the sole substrate of order and law. It is not merely the bearer of forms, but their source. It is not a neutral stage upon which physical processes unfold, but the very condition of their possibility. This places the question of cosmic order not within a separate metaphysical sphere, but within the structure of what exists itself.

This perspective does not deny the mystery of existence, but relocates it. The question is no longer why an external order organizes matter, but why matter is such that order is unavoidable. And this question opens the path toward understanding complexity not as an accident, but as an internal development of material reality itself.

III. FROM INTERACTION TO ARCHITECTURE: COMPLEXITY AS AN ONTOLOGICAL TENDENCY

If matter is understood as the substrate of order and law, a further question arises that goes beyond the physical description of processes: why does this order not remain confined to minimal forms of stability, but instead develop into increasingly complex structures? The traditional response of science has been to describe the mechanisms of this development - fundamental interactions, initial conditions, and the emergence of structures - yet it has rarely addressed the ontological implications of this fact. Complexity has been treated as an outcome, not as a tendency.

Cosmic history, however, reveals a recurring pattern: from the simplest forms of organization emerge structures that are not only more complex, but also more stable in relation to their environment. Elementary particles combine into atoms, atoms into molecules, molecules into macromolecular structures, and these into systems that exhibit new behaviors not predictable from their individual components alone. This transition does not occur in opposition to the laws of nature, but precisely because of them.

At this point, a conceptual distinction becomes necessary: complexity is not merely a quantitative accumulation of parts, but a qualitative organization of the relations among them. A complex system is not characterized solely by the number of its components, but by the manner in which those components interact coherently. This coherence is not static; it is maintained through a dynamic equilibrium that allows the system to adapt and to persist under changing conditions.

Within this framework, interaction assumes a central role. Without interaction there is no structure, and without structure there is no complexity. Interaction, however, is not unconstrained: it occurs within parameters that preserve the coherence of the system. When interaction destroys coherence, the system disintegrates; when it preserves and reorganizes it, a new form of stability emerges. Complexity thus appears as the result of a continuous tension between change and the preservation of identity.

This dynamic suggests that complexity is not an accidental deviation from fundamental order, but an advanced expression of it. Matter does not move toward complexity because it “aims” at something, but because more complex configurations are often more effective at maintaining coherence through interaction. In this sense, complexity is not a goal, but a necessary consequence of the way matter exists and responds to itself.

This view allows for a deeper interpretation of emergence. Emergent phenomena are not ruptures in lawfulness, but new levels of it. Each new level of complexity introduces properties that cannot be fully reduced to the lower level, yet nevertheless depend upon it. This vertical relationship among levels of reality gives rise to an ontological hierarchy, in which each tier is a distinct expression of the same Universal Matter.

From this perspective, the transition from physics to chemistry, from chemistry to biology, and from biology to nervous systems does not represent a series of historical accidents, but a structural continuity. Complexity appears as an internal tendency of material reality to explore stable forms of organization. This tendency does not require an external guiding principle; it arises from the very relations that constitute matter.

Thus, long before the emergence of life, and well before the appearance of consciousness, material reality had already constructed a deep architecture of interaction and coherence. This architecture is not a superficial layer imposed upon chaos, but the foundation upon which every subsequent form of existence becomes possible. It is precisely this continuity that renders the emergence of life intelligible not as an exception to cosmic order, but as a further expression of it.

IV. LIFE AND CONSCIOUSNESS AS CONTINUITY, NOT AS RUPTURE

The transition from non-living matter to the first biological organisms has often been treated as a radical threshold - a moment of discontinuity in which the laws of physics and chemistry appear insufficient to explain the emergence of living phenomena. This tendency to conceive life as an exception to material order has, directly or indirectly, nourished the idea that life requires an additional principle - whether vitalist, teleological, or metaphysical. A more careful examination of the structural continuity of natural processes, however, suggests a different interpretation.

The earliest unicellular organisms exhibit no form of reflective consciousness, yet they nevertheless manifest a range of behaviors that indicate the active preservation of their structural coherence. They respond to chemical changes in their environment, avoid conditions that threaten their integrity, and develop elementary mechanisms of reproduction. These processes are not directed by conscious intentions, but by the internal dynamics of systems that maintain stability through interaction.

In this sense, life can be defined as a particular form of material organization in which coherence is no longer merely structural, but also functional. The living organism is not simply a stable structure; it is a system that continuously works to maintain itself far from thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment. This “distance from equilibrium” does not represent a violation of physical laws, but a new mode of their realization at a higher level of complexity.

This interpretation becomes even clearer when multicellular forms of life are considered. Plants, for example, do not possess consciousness in the subjective sense, yet they display extraordinarily sophisticated mechanisms of interaction with their environment. They orient themselves toward light, regulate metabolism in accordance with soil and climatic conditions, and develop reproductive strategies involving complex structures such as flowers and seeds. These structures have no aesthetic value for the organism itself, but play a decisive functional role in preserving biological continuity.

The beauty of flowers, viewed from this perspective, is not an aesthetic accident, but the result of structural selection favoring more effective forms of interaction with other organisms. Colors, shapes, and scents are not expressions of conscious purpose, but components of a functional architecture that increases the probability of pollination and, consequently, species survival. Here it becomes clear that even in the absence of consciousness, biologically organized matter produces behaviors that appear goal-oriented.

The transition from plants to animals introduces a new layer of complexity: the emergence of sensitivity and subjective experience. Nervous systems allow for the integration of information from the environment and for more flexible responses to it. Animals experience pain, fear, pleasure, and spatial orientation; they learn, remember, and modify behavior on the basis of experience. These phenomena are not merely mechanical reflexes, but indicators of an embodied form of consciousness directly linked to the body and its surroundings.

A common error of the philosophical tradition has been to treat this form of consciousness as deficient or inferior in comparison to human consciousness. Such an approach underestimates the fact that consciousness does not arise fully formed and articulated, but develops gradually as a function of increasing neural complexity and interaction with the world. Human consciousness, in this framework, does not represent a radical rupture with the living world, but an intensification and expansion of capacities already present in other forms of life.

Life and consciousness, therefore, should not be understood as phenomena that require explanation outside material order, but as expressions of an ontological continuity. They are different phases of the same tendency of matter to preserve coherence through interaction and to explore increasingly complex forms of organization. This perspective prepares the ground for an even more challenging question: what occurs when consciousness reaches the level at which reality begins to reflect upon itself?

V. HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE ONTOLOGICAL DIMENSION OF ACTION

With the emergence of human consciousness, the process of increasing material complexity reaches a qualitatively new point. For the first time in the history of the universe, a form of organization appears that is capable not only of experiencing the world, but also of reflecting upon it. Human consciousness is not limited to sensitivity or reaction to stimuli; it includes the capacity for abstraction, for the formation of concepts, for judgment, and for the projection of actions into the future. This transition is not merely quantitative, but represents a change in the way material reality relates to itself.

At this stage, biologically organized matter attains the ability to construct internal models of the world and of itself. The human being does not merely react to the environment, but develops a self-understanding as a distinct subject, separated from the object of experience. This temporary separation between subject and world has constituted the foundation of the entire Western epistemological tradition, yet it also contains an internal paradox: the subject that thinks the world is itself a product of the very world it seeks to understand.

Reflective consciousness distinguishes human action from other forms of biological interaction. Actions are no longer simple responses to immediate conditions, but processes mediated by mental representations, comparisons, and anticipations. This capacity to operate with possible alternatives and to connect action with foreseeable consequences is directly linked to the level of organization of the nervous system and to the capacity for conceptual reflection.

From this perspective, what is commonly described as “responsibility” does not appear as an external moral addition to biological existence, but as an internal dimension of reflective consciousness itself. Consciousness opens the space of possibility for choice, error, and correction, thereby rendering human action qualitatively different from spontaneous natural processes. This difference does not consist in a detachment from material order, but in the manner in which that order begins to be mediated by representation and thought.

Within this framework, the traditional separation between nature and ethics loses its absolute character. If consciousness is a product of Universal Matter and simultaneously the means through which matter achieves a form of reflection upon itself, then human action acquires a distinctive ontological status. It is no longer merely a local event within a segment of reality, but a point of intervention at which material processes begin to be regulated also through thought.

Human consciousness, in this sense, can be understood as the phase in which the universe acquires the capacity to represent the conditions of its own existence. The expansion of technical and social capacities indicates that matter organized in human form has reached a level of intervention no longer limited by spontaneous mechanisms of self-regulation. This fact does not constitute a normative evaluation, but an ontological description of a new state of reality.

In this light, consciousness appears neither as a metaphysical privilege nor as an external moral burden, but as the expression of a unique position within the hierarchy of material complexity. It marks the moment at which the processes that constitute reality no longer unfold solely in a blind manner, but begin to be mediated by meaning. It is precisely this fact that inevitably opens the question of the philosophical status of what tradition has called the “divine”, without closing it within predetermined forms.

VI. UNIVERSAL MATTER AND THE PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM OF THE DIVINE

If the preceding analyses are taken seriously, the traditional concept of God as an entity separated from material reality becomes increasingly difficult to defend in a coherent manner. Matter, from the very first moment of its existence, has demonstrated an internal capacity to generate order, lawfulness, complexity, and ultimately consciousness. These are properties that, throughout the history of philosophical and theological thought, have been regarded as characteristic of what has been called the “divine”. The question that arises is not whether these properties exist, but where their source should be placed ontologically.

Classical theological tradition has located this source outside empirical reality, conceiving God as a transcendent principle independent of matter and of its processes. A sustained examination of cosmic history, however, suggests a conceptual alternative: order and lawfulness are not added to matter from outside, but manifest as its intrinsic properties. Matter does not appear as a passive substrate awaiting form, but as a reality that, through interaction, produces increasingly complex and stable structures.

Within this framework, the problem of God shifts from the question of existence to the question of interpretation. If what has historically been called the “divine” refers to the source of order, law, and intelligibility in the world, then it becomes legitimate to ask whether these properties necessarily require a separate entity, or whether they can be understood as expressions of the structure of material reality itself. This does not imply a reduction of the divine, but a reconsideration of its ontological placement.

In this perspective, human consciousness assumes a particular significance without being burdened with direct theological meanings. It does not appear as something alien to nature, but as the result of a long process of material organization in which reality reaches a level of reflection upon itself. Consciousness does not create the order of the world, but renders it thinkable; it does not stand above matter, but arises from it and operates within its limits.

This mode of thought avoids classical dualisms between nature and the divine, between matter and meaning. It proposes a monistic framework in which existence has a single basis, yet manifests itself at different levels of organization and reflection. Within this framework, what tradition has called God is not excluded, but reformulated as a philosophical problem: as a name for the fundamental order of reality, for its lawfulness, and for its capacity to generate meaning.

In conclusion, the analogy between the properties of Universal Matter and the attributes of the divine should not be understood as a direct identification, but as an invitation to conceptual re-examination. It suggests that the traditional separation between God and the world may be more a historical construct than an ontological necessity. In this sense, the question of God is not closed, but reformulated - no longer as a search for an entity outside reality, but as an effort to understand the very structure of reality and the conditions that render it intelligible to itself.