The Elemental Reason - First Ontological Law: Coherence, Interaction, and Complexity as the Structure of All Reality

Abstract

The Elemental Reason formulates a minimal ontological structure for empirical existence by extracting the operative conditions presupposed in scientific measurement and description. Across physics, chemistry, biology and the sciences of mind, a phenomenon is empirically identifiable only insofar as it preserves structural continuity across change, participates in causal interaction and exhibits non-trivial internal organization. These three conditions are articulated as coherence, interaction and complexity, and formalized in the relation E = C × I × K ≠ 0, where existence is understood as an empirical-ontological status rather than a presumed substrate. The framework interprets matter, energy, time and space as derived magnitudes that express specific configurations of these primitive conditions, rather than as ontological primitives. It reframes the Big Bang as a boundary of describability: physical description becomes meaningful only within regimes where coherence, interaction and complexity are operative, rendering “before” conceptually inapplicable. Consciousness is treated as a reflexive regime in which these same conditions become internally organized such that a system gains operative access to its own conditions of existence, grounding intelligibility within the same structure that grounds empirical reality. The law’s scientific status is defined operationally by falsifiability: any empirically existing system lacking coherence, interaction or minimal organization would constitute a counterexample. By formalizing what empirical practice already presupposes, The Elemental Reason offers a unifying ontological horizon within which phenomena, measurement, theoretical articulation and meaning remain continuous across scales - from elementary particles to cosmological structure, and from biological organization to conscious understanding.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Structural Problem of Substrate and the Crisis of Scientific Understanding

Modern science has reached an extraordinary level of empirical precision and technical effectiveness. It has developed methods capable of successfully predicting the behavior of physical systems and has produced technologies that operate with remarkable reliability. The resulting body of experimentally verifiable knowledge is vast and continuously expanding.

Alongside this success, however, a structural crisis has emerged. This crisis does not concern the accuracy of measurements or the validity of experimental procedures. It concerns the conceptual integration of scientific knowledge into a coherent framework capable of rendering the Universe intelligible without internal contradiction.

At the core of this crisis lies an inherited perceptual assumption: the view that matter is a given substance upon which laws, measurements, and scientific models are applied. This assumption does not arise from the empirical content of what is actually measured. It originates in an archaic mode of understanding reality - a naïve interpretation formed from direct sensory observation. Within this framework, matter is treated as the ontological foundation of reality, while processes, interactions, and structures are regarded as its properties or behaviors. The empirical structure of reality indicates a different order of dependence.

The difficulty is not limited to conceptual imprecision. The assumption has shaped the development of scientific knowledge in decisive ways. First, it has generated explanatory gaps - conceptual voids that cannot be resolved within the current scientific vocabulary, regardless of advances in data or mathematical formalization. Local phenomena are described with precision, yet they remain disconnected from a unified account of reality as a whole. This fragmentation produces structural anomalies in the broader conceptual picture and contributes to persistent theoretical tensions, including what has been described as the “hard problem” of consciousness.

Second, the assumption imposes invisible but powerful constraints on interpretation. By presupposing a material substrate as ontologically primary, science has constructed a conceptual division between what is measured - matter - and the conditions that make measurement possible. The dynamic process occurring during measurement is separated from the result obtained. This division obscures the continuity between levels of description - from elementary particles to complex structures - and prevents a unified interpretation of measurable reality.

Third, the conceptual restriction limits scientific development. When reality is presupposed as a given material base, theoretical innovation is forced to operate within predefined parameters. Many theoretical efforts therefore concentrate on adjusting or extending existing models rather than examining the foundational structure common to all empirically accessible reality.

In practice, science never measures a bare material substrate devoid of properties. Every empirical measurement presupposes relative stability, interaction, and internal organization in the observed system. What is identified as a “physical system” is the outcome of a continuous dynamic process that maintains identity through time, participates in causal exchange, and exhibits a degree of organization that distinguishes it from its environment. Without these operative conditions, there is no object of measurement and no empirically intelligible or linguistically articulable reality.

These operative conditions, however, have not been recognized as constitutive of reality itself. They have been treated as secondary features of a presumed material base. This has led to a series of conceptual dualisms - between matter and laws, structure and process, object and measurement - that do not arise from empirical data but from inherited perceptual frameworks. The result has been artificial divisions, conceptual ambiguities, and persistent misunderstandings concerning the nature of physical reality.

The present crisis of scientific understanding does not stem from empirical error. Measurement itself represents one of the most rigorous achievements of science. The crisis concerns interpretation. Scientific practice continues to generate profound data and reliable predictions, while attributing these results to a material object assumed in advance. Reality is therefore treated simultaneously as a fixed object governed by external laws and as something revealed only through dynamic measurement processes. The tension between these views remains unaddressed.

A fundamental reformulation is required - one that preserves scientific rigor and avoids introducing additional metaphysical assumptions. Such a reformulation must identify the minimal universal conditions that allow reality to exist as empirically accessible reality. By eliminating the need for a presupposed substrate and by situating all levels of scientific description within a unified perspective, it becomes possible to overcome explanatory gaps and dismantle artificial disciplinary boundaries.

A conception of reality grounded in its operative conditions rather than inherited assumptions offers the possibility of resolving accumulated dualisms and restoring coherence between scientific practice and conceptual understanding.

2. THE FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITION OF EXISTENCE

Existence as Empirical Status

Any attempt to construct a unified understanding of scientific reality encounters a foundational difficulty at the outset: the term “existence” is widely used yet rarely defined with precision. In most scientific contexts, existence is treated as self-evident - as something that precedes analysis rather than something that requires clarification. This practical usage has proven effective, but it has left unarticulated the question of what, in rigorous scientific terms, it means for an observed object to exist.

Existence does not require treatment as a metaphysical category, nor as an ontological assumption independent of scientific practice. It is more accurately understood as an empirical status. To state that something exists is to state that it is empirically identifiable - that it can be included without ambiguity within a scientific description. This definition introduces no new element into scientific methodology. It makes explicit what scientific methods already presuppose in practice.

A state of reality is empirically identifiable only if it can be distinguished from other states, if it preserves minimal identity through change, and if it participates in causal relations. Without these conditions, no criterion remains for distinguishing existence from non-existence. Existence is therefore not an attribute added to a pre-given entity. It is the outcome of an operative structure that renders an entity distinguishable as such.

This perspective alters the understanding of empirical reality. Instead of beginning with a world composed of objects that exist prior to investigation and are subsequently studied, analysis begins with the conditions that must be operative for something to qualify as a scientific object. Attention shifts from the question “what is reality?” to the question “how does reality become identifiable?”

In practice, every scientific act - measurement, observation, experiment, or modeling - presupposes a form of stability. What is measured must preserve sufficient identity through time to be recognized as the same entity during the act of measurement. Without minimal continuity, there is no object of measurement, only an undifferentiated flux of change. The preservation of identity is therefore not a secondary feature of reality but a precondition of empirical identification.

Equally fundamental is the requirement of interaction. Any empirically real state must participate in relations of exchange. A system that neither affects nor is affected is not merely inaccessible to measurement; it lacks empirical standing. Without interaction, there is no information exchange, no signal, and no measurable effect. Interaction is not an event that happens to reality; it is one of the conditions that render reality empirically actual.

Beyond preservation and interaction, empirical existence requires non-trivial organization. A completely homogenized state, devoid of internal differentiation, offers no basis for identification, description, or analysis. Minimal organization - or complexity - enables distinctions among parts, functions, and levels within a system. Without such organization, no structure is available, and no scientifically articulable reality emerges.

These three aspects - preservation of identity, interaction, and organization - are not alternative descriptions of the same phenomenon, nor properties added to an independent substrate. They are distinct yet jointly necessary conditions for empirical existence. The absence of any one of them makes it impossible to identify a state as physical reality. Existence cannot be reduced to static persistence, isolated dynamic process, or abstract organization alone. It requires the simultaneous presence of all three.

Empirical existence is therefore not a simple fact but a status dependent on the fulfillment of concrete operative conditions. A system exists not because it is composed of matter, but because it preserves identity, participates in interaction, and exhibits organization. Matter, in this sense, functions as a conventional designation for configurations that satisfy these conditions.

Understanding existence as empirical status carries immediate implications for scientific interpretation. The need for a presupposed substrate disappears, and attention turns to the operative conditions already present in every measurable phenomenon. Reality persists only insofar as these conditions remain non-zero.

Within this framework, existence assumes a dynamic character. It depends on the degree to which operative conditions are maintained. Change, emergence, and disappearance no longer appear as enigmatic events. They follow directly from variations in the conditions that make existence possible.

This definition introduces no additional metaphysical commitments and does not alter scientific methodology. It clarifies what scientific practice already implies: empirical reality is not given as a substrate but arises through operative conditions that render it identifiable, stable, and interactive. On this basis, a rigorous formulation of the law describing the minimal structure of physical existence becomes possible.

3. ANALYSIS OF EMPIRICAL PRACTICE

What Science Actually Measures

Understanding the nature of empirical reality does not require the introduction of new hypotheses or the modification of existing scientific methods. A careful examination of what occurs in every act of measurement is sufficient. Every experiment, observation, and scientific model involves a sequence of operations that, regardless of discipline, follow the same underlying structure. This structure is not accidental. It reflects the minimal conditions that must be operative for something to be empirically identifiable.

In every measurement, the initial step consists in identifying a system. This identification presupposes that something can be distinguished from its environment and treated as a discrete unit of analysis. Without this initial distinction, no object of study exists and no basis for measurement is available. Although this is often taken for granted, it implies that the system must preserve minimal identity throughout the interval of observation. If identity dissolves immediately, nothing remains that can be measured.

The preservation of identity is not a theoretical abstraction but an operational condition. Measuring instruments, experimental procedures, and analytical models are all constructed on the assumption that what is measured does not change arbitrarily during the act of measurement. Even when highly dynamic or unstable systems are studied, some degree of coherence is required that allows change to be tracked as change of the same entity rather than as an indeterminate flux.

The second indispensable element in empirical practice is interaction. A system that does not interact cannot be measured, not because of technical limitations, but because it cannot manifest itself empirically. Measurement, in any form, is always an act of interaction between the system under study and an instrument or environment. Without interaction, there is no signal, no effect, and no data.

Interaction is not a secondary event that occurs to a system already given. It is the condition through which the system becomes empirically present. An entity that neither affects nor is affected is not simply invisible to science; it cannot enter any empirical description. Interaction therefore functions not as a property of matter, but as a prerequisite for its empirical reality.

Beyond identity and interaction, every act of measurement presupposes internal organization. A completely unorganized state, devoid of internal differentiation, provides no structure upon which scientific analysis can operate. Even the most elementary measurements require the system to exhibit distinctions, levels, or relations that can be recorded and interpreted. Minimal organization - or complexity - makes description, comparison, and modeling possible.

Scientific practice therefore does not measure “something” in the sense of a simple substance. It measures configurations - ways in which something maintains structure, participates in interaction, and exhibits organization. Even quantities regarded as fundamental within traditional descriptions are summaries of these aspects. They do not exist independently of the conditions that render them measurable.

This observation carries significant implications for the interpretation of scientific results. If every measurement is reducible, in practice, to the identification of stability, interaction, and organization, then the notion of an independent material substrate loses its empirical grounding. No step within scientific practice reveals a substrate as distinct from the manner in which it manifests through these operations.

What is conventionally termed “matter” emerges as a collective designation for configurations that satisfy these operative conditions. Matter is not directly measured; it is inferred from the fact that a system preserves identity, participates in interaction, and exhibits organization. Matter therefore does not function as the starting point of empirical analysis, but as its result.

This becomes especially clear at the limits of scientific description. When a system loses coherence, ceases to interact, or dissolves into a state lacking distinguishable organization, it no longer remains an object of scientific analysis. No appeal to mysterious disappearance is required. The operative conditions for empirical identification are no longer present. At that point, the system does not transform into something else for science; it simply exits the domain of empirical description.

Scientific practice has thus operated for a long time upon a clearly defined operative basis without articulating it explicitly. It has consistently measured preservation, interaction, and organization, while speaking as though it were measuring an independent material substrate. The discrepancy between what is done and what is said has produced conceptual confusion and hindered the development of a unified understanding of reality.

Making this operative structure explicit does not require rejecting any existing empirical result. On the contrary, existing results acquire greater clarity and ontological coherence. They are no longer treated as partial descriptions of an unknown substrate, but as direct manifestations of the conditions that render reality empirically identifiable.

The analysis of empirical practice does not weaken science; it strengthens its conceptual foundation. What has been treated as “matter” can be understood as a conventional name for operative configurations that fulfill specific conditions. These conditions are not secondary properties. They constitute the fundamental structure upon which every scientific description of reality depends.

A precise and rigorous formulation of these conditions becomes necessary - not as auxiliary categories, but as the ontological basis of empirical existence. Only on this foundation can a law be articulated that does not merely describe particular phenomena, but expresses the minimal structure that must be operative for any phenomenon to exist within scientific reality.

4. PRIMITIVE ONTOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

Coherence, Interaction, and Complexity

The analysis of empirical scientific practice shows that every act of measurement, identification, or description presupposes operative conditions without which reality would be neither distinguishable nor articulable. These conditions do not appear as theoretical hypotheses. They function as factual preconditions of any possible scientific experience. Their ontological status, however, has remained unclear. They have typically been treated as ways in which an already assumed reality behaves, rather than as the minimal structure that renders empirical reality possible.

This ambiguity is decisive. When the conditions that make measurement and description possible are reduced to properties of a more fundamental presumed entity, reality is taken as given and ontological inquiry comes to a halt. When these conditions prove irreducible to more basic notions, they constitute the primitive level of empirical existence.

A condition qualifies as ontologically primitive when its removal makes it impossible to distinguish empirical existence from non-existence. If, without a given condition, no state can be identified, tracked, or described as reality, that condition is not accidental but fundamental. The following analysis proceeds on this criterion.

4.1 Coherence as the Condition of Empirical Identity

Coherence is defined as the capacity of a configuration to preserve structural identity through change. It does not imply absolute permanence or the absence of transformation. It refers to the sufficient preservation of internal relations that allows a system to be identified as the same across different moments.

Without coherence, empirical identity does not arise. A state that changes without structural continuity cannot be recognized as the same state, cannot be followed, and cannot be compared. In such a case, no object of study exists, only a series of disconnected states without operative linkage. Coherence therefore functions not as a secondary description but as the condition that renders empirical reality identifiable.

Coherence is not an abstract construct. It manifests in concrete processes: preservation of relations, relative stability of configurations, and operative continuity. When these relations dissolve beyond a minimal threshold, empirical identity disappears and reality ceases to be scientifically articulable.

4.2 Interaction as the Condition of Empirical Presence

Interaction is defined as the capacity of a configuration to affect and to be affected in a causal manner. This condition is essential not only for measurement but for empirical existence itself. A state that does not interact is not merely inaccessible to current instruments; it is excluded from any possible empirical description.

Without interaction, no information exchange occurs, no observable effect arises, and no criterion of presence is available. Interaction does not describe a process that happens to an already existing reality. It constitutes the condition through which reality becomes empirically present. Every scientific description, across all disciplines, relies upon forms of interaction.

The removal of interaction does not lead to a hidden or invisible reality. It leads to the absence of empirical reality altogether. A non-interacting state does not represent an unknown entity; it lacks empirical validity.

4.3 Complexity as the Condition of Structure

Complexity is defined as the presence of non-trivial organization above a minimal threshold of differentiation. High complexity is not required. A minimal level of organization sufficient to distinguish internal relations, functions, or components is enough.

A completely homogeneous state, lacking internal differentiation, provides no basis for empirical identification. Even in the most elementary cases, empirical existence presupposes a minimal degree of organization. Complexity is therefore not structural luxury but a necessary condition of articulable reality.

When complexity falls below the minimal threshold of differentiation, no structure remains upon which scientific analysis can operate. At that point, empirical existence ceases, not because something mysteriously disappears, but because the conditions for structure are no longer operative.

4.4 Distinction and Joint Necessity of the Conditions

Coherence, interaction, and complexity are conceptually distinct and irreducible to one another. Coherence does not entail interaction. Interaction does not guarantee organization. Organization without preserved identity does not yield stable empirical reality. Each fulfills a specific and irreplaceable ontological function.

None of them is sufficient in isolation. The presence of one or even two of these conditions does not produce empirical existence. Only their simultaneous presence establishes the minimal conditions under which a state can be identified, interact, and exhibit structure as empirical reality.

This joint necessity indicates that these conditions are not accidental attributes of a presumed substrate. They constitute the minimal structure of empirical reality itself. The removal of any one of them renders scientific existence impossible.

4.5 The Ontological Status of Primitive Conditions

From this analysis it follows that coherence, interaction, and complexity are not auxiliary categories nor properties of something more fundamental. They are the manner in which empirical reality exists. Every other notion emerges as a description of specific configurations of these conditions.

The focus therefore shifts from the question “what is reality composed of?” to the question “which conditions must be operative for reality to exist?” The answer is not speculative. It arises directly from empirical scientific practice. Physical reality does not appear as a given substrate. It appears as a dynamic configuration of primitive ontological conditions.

At this point, the formulation of a law that unites these conditions within a single structure becomes necessary. Such a formulation introduces no new content. It expresses, in condensed form, the ontological necessity that the preceding analysis has already made explicit.

5. FORMULATION OF THE ONTOLOGICAL LAW

The Minimal Dynamic Structure of Existence

The preceding analysis establishes that empirical existence cannot be understood as a simple fact or as an attribute of a presupposed substrate. It appears only where specific conditions are operative - conditions that do not describe contingent features of reality, but structural elements without which reality cannot be identified, measured, or scientifically described. Coherence, interaction, and complexity have been identified as primitive ontological conditions, conceptually distinct and jointly necessary.

Within this framework, the formulation of a law assumes a formal character. It does not interpret phenomena metaphorically, nor does it explain local mechanisms in the manner of differential laws in classical or quantum physics. Its function is to articulate the minimal operative structure that must be fulfilled for any phenomenon to exist as empirical phenomenon. The law does not introduce new content beyond the previous analysis. It expresses, in concise form, the ontological necessity already established.

The empirical existence of any state of reality can be expressed through the relation:

E = C × I × K ≠ 0

where:

E - denotes existence as empirical ontological status,

C - denotes coherence, understood as preservation of structural identity,

I - denotes interaction, understood as operative causal presence,

K - denotes complexity, understood as non-trivial organization above a minimal threshold.

This relation functions as a physical law in a fundamental sense because it concerns real, measurable, and operative magnitudes that vary in time and space and determine the existential status of systems at all scales of reality. It is simultaneously a dynamic law, since the values of C, I, and K are not abstract constants. They change in the course of system evolution, and with them the ontological status of existence changes accordingly.

The law does not describe the evolution of a particular local system in the manner of classical or quantum equations. It expresses the universal dynamic condition that must be satisfied at every moment of the evolution of any empirically existing system. In this sense, the law is not locally dynamic but ontologically dynamic.

If any one of the terms C, I, or K reaches zero, E becomes zero. This does not signify transformation into another form of hidden reality. It signifies the loss of operative conditions that render empirical reality articulable. When coherence is lost, identity disappears. When interaction ceases, causal presence vanishes. When complexity falls below the minimal threshold, structure dissolves. In the absence of any one of these conditions, nothing remains that can be treated as empirical reality.

The multiplicative form of the law is not arbitrary. It reflects the strict joint necessity of the conditions. None of them compensates for the absence of another. Coherence without interaction does not yield empirical reality. Interaction without organization does not produce a system. Complexity without preserved identity cannot be identified as reality.

The law formulated here is therefore universal - because it applies at every scale of reality; dynamic - because it operates upon magnitudes that change in time and space; and ontological - because it expresses the minimal structure of empirical existence itself. It does not compete with existing laws of physics, chemistry, or biology. It defines the condition within which those laws operate and acquire empirical meaning.

The law does not describe how a presumed reality behaves. It specifies what must be operative for something to behave as empirical reality. On this basis, the functioning of known physical quantities and local laws becomes intelligible: they operate only within a domain where existence is sustained by the dynamic co-presence of coherence, interaction, and complexity.

6. PHYSICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE LAW

Mass, Energy, Time, and Space as Derived Magnitudes

The ontological law of existence formulated above does not stand apart from the physical description of reality. It requires a reconsideration of the ontological status of quantities commonly regarded as fundamental in physics. If empirical existence depends upon the operative co-presence of coherence, interaction, and complexity, then every measurable physical magnitude must be interpreted as an expression of specific configurations of these conditions rather than as an entity independent of them.

Mass, energy, time, and space therefore appear not as primitive categories of reality but as ontologically derived magnitudes. They represent distinct modes in which primitive ontological conditions manifest and become measurable within particular regimes of empirical reality.

6.1 Mass as Density of Preserved Interaction

Mass is commonly treated as a fundamental attribute of matter. Empirically, however, mass is never encountered as a bare substance. It is accessed through interactive effects and through the structural stability a system exhibits. A system possesses mass insofar as it preserves a configuration of interactions through time.

Within this framework, mass can be understood as density of preserved interaction - the stabilization of interaction through coherence. Without coherence, interactions dissolve and fail to generate persistent identity. Without interaction, no measurable effect arises that could be interpreted as mass. Mass therefore does not generate interaction; it results from the sustained configuration of interaction within a coherent structure.

The intimate relation between mass and energy, formally articulated in modern physics, reflects this structural interdependence. Mass appears wherever interactions achieve sufficient coherence to produce empirical stability.

6.2 Energy as Capacity for Interaction

Energy is typically defined as the capacity to perform work or to produce change. Within the ontological framework established here, this definition acquires greater precision: energy expresses capacity for interaction. It denotes the potential of a configuration to affect and to be affected, to participate in causal processes.

Energy does not exist independently of interaction. A system devoid of interaction possesses no empirically determinable energy. Different forms of energy correspond to different regimes of interaction rather than to distinct substances. Energy does not function as something a system contains; it expresses the way in which the system is able to interact.

This perspective clarifies the deep relation between energy and mass. Both express configurations of interaction under different conditions of preservation and transformation. Energy represents dynamic potentiality of interaction, while mass represents stabilized interaction within coherent structure.

6.3 Time as Rhythm of Change in Operative Configurations

Time is often described as a fundamental dimension within which physical processes unfold. When empirical reality is understood as dependent upon operative conditions, time cannot be conceived independently of their change. Time emerges as the rhythm of transformation in configurations of coherence, interaction, and complexity.

Without change, no empirically articulable time arises. A completely static state would provide no criterion for temporal measurement. Time therefore does not function as a container of events but as the measurable ordering of change.

Modern physical theory has already weakened the conception of time as absolute background, most notably through relativity. Within the present framework, this relativity reflects variations in the rate at which operative configurations change. Temporal rhythm mirrors the dynamical modulation of the conditions sustaining empirical existence.

6.4 Space as Positional Relation Between Configurations

Traditional descriptions treat space as a framework within which objects occupy positions. Within the ontological law, space appears as positional relation among configurations rather than as independent entity.

Spatial position has no meaning in the absence of distinguishable systems capable of comparison. Space manifests only where multiple configurations preserve identity, interact, and exhibit organization. Without these operative conditions, no basis remains for distance, direction, or spatial structure.

Contemporary physics increasingly interprets space not as passive container but as relational structure. Within this perspective, spatial extension articulates relations among coherent and interacting configurations rather than an independent substrate.

6.5 A Unified Understanding of Physical Magnitudes

Mass, energy, time, and space do not function as ontological starting points. They arise from specific configurations of primitive conditions. They are measurable expressions of coherence, interaction, and complexity operating under distinct regimes of empirical reality.

This conclusion does not contradict established physical descriptions. It situates them within a clarified ontological framework. It explains why these magnitudes consistently appear interrelated and why attempts to treat them as fully independent entities have generated conceptual fragmentation.

Interpreting physical magnitudes as derived permits a unified account of reality that transcends artificial divisions between structure and process, between statics and dynamics, and between matter and law. It opens the possibility of understanding physical reality as a dynamic configuration of operative conditions whose persistence and transformation determine the measurable structure of the universe.

7. THE BOUNDARY CONDITION OF THE BIG BANG

The Origin of Physical Reality and the Limit of Describability

The problem of the origin of the universe has traditionally been treated as a cosmological problem, associated with the early evolution of space, time, and energy. Such treatment often presupposes the prior existence of the very categories that the Big Bang is said to have brought into existence. Conceptual ambiguity arises when conditions “before” the Big Bang are described using notions defined only within the regime inaugurated by it.

Within the framework of the ontological law of existence, the problem admits a more precise formulation. The Big Bang is not understood as a material event occurring within pre-existing time and space. It marks the ontological boundary at which the conditions of empirical existence become operative. It does not signal the beginning of change within an already given reality. It designates the transition from the absence of operative existential conditions to their presence.

If empirical existence requires the co-presence of coherence, interaction, and complexity, then any physical description remains valid only within the regime where these conditions are non-zero. Beyond that regime, the concepts employed by physics lose empirical meaning. No alternative hidden reality is implied. What is absent are the operative conditions that render reality scientifically describable.

In this sense, the Big Bang represents the transition from an ontologically indeterminate state to a regime in which coherence, interaction, and complexity become minimally operative. This transition does not constitute a physical process in the classical sense, since physical processes presuppose the prior operation of these very conditions. The Big Bang designates the boundary at which processes become possible.

This perspective clarifies the difficulty surrounding the expression “before the Big Bang.” The term “before” presupposes time. Time, as previously established, is a derived magnitude dependent upon the rhythm of change in operative configurations. In the absence of such configurations, no change and no rhythm are available, and therefore no empirically articulable time exists. The notion of a temporal “before” applies only within the regime where temporal structure has already become operative.

The concept of vacuum prior to the Big Bang requires similar reconsideration. The quantum vacuum, as employed in physical theory, is defined within a framework where fields, interactions, and minimal structure are already present. It presupposes operative existential conditions. Vacuum therefore cannot describe a state beyond the ontological boundary marked by the Big Bang. Beyond that boundary, neither vacuum, nor fields, nor potential particles can be meaningfully asserted. What remains is the absence of the conditions that render empirical articulation possible.

This approach eliminates the need for speculation about a prior material state, whether dense, hot, or dormant. Any such description already presupposes coherence, interaction, and complexity, and therefore belongs to the regime subsequent to the ontological boundary. The Big Bang is not an early phase within the same ontological order. It constitutes the transition into that order.

Within this framework, the origin of the universe does not require a material cause in the classical sense. It requires recognition of the fact that the operative conditions of existence become non-zero. This does not represent causal explanation within time. It defines a boundary condition. As with any boundary condition, it is not explained from within the system it makes possible. It establishes the starting point for the validity of descriptions within that system.

The cosmological discussion thus shifts from the question “what happened before the Big Bang?” to the question “when and how do the conditions of empirical existence become operative?” The latter question admits scientific articulation. The former does not. The ontological law of existence thereby establishes a clear boundary between what can be scientifically described and what lacks empirical meaning.

Understood in this way, the Big Bang does not represent an unresolved enigma placed at the beginning of time. It represents a necessary boundary of describability. It marks the ontological moment at which reality becomes empirical reality - the point at which existence acquires operative status. Beyond this boundary, no hidden realm or mystery is implied. Only the absence of the conditions that make scientific description possible remains.

This interpretation offers a unified account of the origin of the universe, fully consistent with empirical scientific practice, while avoiding conceptual paradoxes that arise from applying derived categories outside their domain of validity. It indicates that the boundary of the Big Bang is not where science fails, but where it becomes clear what makes science possible.

8. THE REGIME OF CONSCIOUSNESS

The Reflexive Configuration of Reality

The problem of consciousness has traditionally been treated as separate from the general description of physical reality. In many approaches, consciousness is either reduced to material processes or regarded as something that escapes physical explanation altogether. Both positions, though apparently opposed, share a common assumption: consciousness requires explanation outside the general structure of reality.

Within the framework of the ontological law of existence, this assumption proves unnecessary. If every empirical existence requires the operative co-presence of coherence, interaction, and complexity, consciousness cannot constitute an exception to that structure. The question does not concern how consciousness is added to a given physical reality. It concerns which configuration of primitive conditions makes its emergence possible.

Consciousness, in this context, is neither defined as substance nor posited as a distinct ontological entity. It is defined as a reflexive regime of reality - a configuration in which primitive ontological conditions operate not only to preserve the existence of a system, but become objects of the system’s own interaction. Consciousness emerges when coherence, interaction, and complexity are organized in such a way that a system maintains operative access to the very conditions sustaining its existence.

This formulation dissolves the need for division between mind and matter. No two kinds of reality are required. A single reality manifests different operative regimes. Consciousness does not stand outside physical reality. It expresses a level of organization at which reality becomes operationally self-referential.

Coherence plays a central role within this regime. A conscious system preserves not only structural identity, but continuity of experiential configuration. Without such continuity, no memory, no experiential present, and no integration of past and present would arise. This continuity does not require a separate mental substance. It depends upon stable yet dynamically evolving configurations that support experiential integration.

Interaction, in the case of consciousness, extends beyond exchange with the external environment. The system interacts with its own internal states, forming a closed operative circuit in which information is not only transmitted but reorganized and integrated. This recursive interaction supports the emergence of subjective experience without invoking any non-physical experiencer.

Complexity provides the structural threshold necessary for this regime. Consciousness does not arise in minimally organized systems. It requires a high degree of differentiation and integration. The relevant complexity does not consist in mere quantity of components, but in the pattern of organization that enables reflexive processing. Without such organization, no operational self-reference becomes possible.

From this perspective, consciousness does not present an insurmountable explanatory gap. The so-called hard problem arises when reality is conceived as inert substrate to which properties are later attached. When reality is understood as dynamic configuration of operative conditions, consciousness appears as a natural consequence of a particular structural regime of those conditions.

This view carries direct implications for the relation between brain, body, and experience. Consciousness does not require identification of a discrete location where it “occurs,” nor does it emerge as a sudden ontological rupture. It develops gradually in proportion to the degree of reflexive organization achieved by a system. Consciousness constitutes an operative regime rather than a discrete event.

Subjective experience, within this framework, is neither illusion nor ontological epiphenomenon. It represents the direct manifestation of a configuration in which the operative conditions of existence become dynamically integrated upon themselves. Experience is real in the same ontological sense as any other empirical phenomenon.

Placing consciousness within the ontological law of existence yields a unified account of reality. The phenomenon of consciousness becomes continuous with the rest of nature without being reduced to it or separated from it. Consciousness does not transcend nature; it expresses one of the most sophisticated configurations through which nature articulates itself.

Traditional dualisms between mind and matter, subject and object, experience and physical process lose their basis under this framework. They do not arise from empirical necessity but from a conceptual separation between reality and its operative conditions. When that separation dissolves, consciousness emerges as integral to a single structured reality governed by the same ontological principles.

The regime of consciousness therefore stands not as exception to the ontological law of existence, but as one of its most advanced expressions. The law applies not only to particles, fields, or cosmic structures, but also to phenomena traditionally considered most resistant to inclusion within a unified scientific framework.

9. THE CONDITION OF FALSIFICATION AND THE SCIENTIFIC STATUS OF THE LAW

Any law that claims universal validity must remain exposed to empirical testing. The scientific status of a law is not determined by conceptual coherence alone, but by the fact that it operates upon real, measurable, and variable magnitudes from which verifiable consequences can be derived in time.

The ontological law of existence, expressed by the relation

E = C × I × K ≠ 0

meets this criterion because coherence, interaction, and complexity are operative magnitudes that are effectively measured in every regime of empirical reality. They do not function as abstract theoretical constructs. They constitute concrete dimensions upon which the identification, tracking, and prediction of systems in physics, chemistry, biology, and the sciences of consciousness depend.

The temporal variation of these magnitudes directly determines the stability or collapse of systems. When coherence degrades, structural identity weakens. When interaction ceases, causal presence disappears. When complexity falls below the minimal threshold, organization dissolves. Through the measurement of these processes, it becomes possible to anticipate - with high empirical probability - when a system approaches the loss of its empirical existential status.

In this sense, the law yields genuine temporal implications. It does not merely describe a static abstract condition. It allows determination of the ontological dynamics of systems - their emergence, relative stability, and collapse. The law thereby stands within the operative family of dynamic laws, though at a more fundamental level, since it specifies the condition that enables local laws themselves to function.

The condition under which the law would fail is clear. The law would be refuted if an empirically identifiable system were observed to retain empirical existence while lacking coherence, lacking interaction, or lacking minimal organization. A single verified case of such a system would suffice to invalidate the law.

Within scientific practice, every system recognized as empirical reality is described through these three dimensions. Its identity is tracked through preservation of structural relations. Its presence is established through interaction. Its analyzability depends upon internal organization. When these dimensions fall below operational thresholds, the system ceases to be an object of empirical description and, consequently, ceases to exist as scientific reality.

The falsifiability criterion of the law is therefore operational rather than speculative. Every experiment, measurement, and scientific prediction either aligns with the law or exposes it to potential refutation through the identification of a counterexample. No protected domain exists beyond empirical scrutiny. The more precisely systems are measured in terms of stability, interaction, and organization, the more directly the law remains open to falsification.

The ontological law of existence does not constitute a theory about a particular class of phenomena, nor does it function as an idealizing model. It does not represent a specific system and does not rely upon simplifying assumptions. It articulates the minimal operative structure required for any system - regardless of scale or nature - to exist empirically and to become subject to scientific prediction.

The law is therefore both ontological and dynamic. It expresses not only the condition of existence, but the manner in which variation in primitive ontological conditions determines the real evolution of systems through time. Causal relations are not displaced; they become operative only within a domain where coherence, interaction, and complexity are present.

The scientific status of the law follows from its precise articulation of what empirical practice already presupposes: reality is measurable, predictable, and describable only insofar as these conditions remain operative. The law does not impose external criteria upon science. It expresses the operative structure upon which every scientific description and prediction depends.

The ontological law of existence therefore does not appear as a hypothesis awaiting confirmation. It stands as the formal articulation of an operative structure that defines the very possibility of science as empirical practice.

10. ONTOLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND THE INFINITY OF CONFIGURATIONS OF EXISTENCE

Every serious attempt to understand the universe eventually encounters a question that cannot be avoided: what makes existence possible? Philosophical and scientific traditions have often begun from what appears given - matter, energy, space, time, or physical laws. Such a starting point remains methodologically insufficient, since it presupposes precisely what requires clarification. When existence is treated as a given fact, inquiry reduces to describing what is, without addressing the conditions under which it can be at all.

The Elemental Reason shifts the point of departure. It does not ask which entities compose the universe, but which minimal ontological conditions allow anything to exist. The shift concerns the level of analysis. Instead of seeking a fundamental substance, it seeks the operative structure that renders reality possible.

A state of existence cannot be an isolated point devoid of relations, identity, or structure. Every phenomenon that appears as real - whether an elementary particle, a biological organism, a thought, or an imaginative projection - requires the co-presence of three fundamental dimensions: coherence, interaction, and complexity.

Coherence constitutes the condition of identity. It ensures that a state preserves minimal continuity and can be recognized as the same through change. Without coherence, no phenomenon persists; only dissolution occurs.

Interaction constitutes the condition of presence. Existence does not consist in absolute isolation, but in participation within networks of relations. Every state affects or is affected. In the absence of interaction, no operative presence arises.

Complexity constitutes the condition of structure. Absolute uniformity without internal differentiation cannot sustain configuration. Complexity provides the minimal organization that renders a state articulable.

These three dimensions do not attach to reality as additional properties. They define its operative structure. Any attempt to imagine existence without one of them does not generate an alternative ontological possibility. It dissolves the very notion of existence. The argument does not concern limits of knowledge. It concerns the conditions that distinguish existence from its absence.

When existence is understood as the co-presence of these three dimensions, the universe no longer appears as a collection of separate entities. It emerges as a dynamic field of configurations. The ontological formula does not prescribe a single model of reality. It defines the minimal condition under which an indefinite multiplicity of forms can appear.

From the most elementary energetic configurations to the most complex systems of consciousness, reality produces forms that differ in degree but not in principle. Elementary particles represent minimal configurations in which identity persists, relations arise, and structure manifests. From these configurations emerge atoms, molecules, chemical networks, and biological systems - not as ontologically distinct categories, but as differentiated articulations of the same structural principle.

The evolution of life represents continuous exploration of the space of possible configurations. The proliferation of species does not fragment reality. It expresses its potential. At each stage, the underlying law remains constant. What changes is the manner in which coherence, interaction, and complexity combine to generate new forms.

When complexity reaches a certain threshold, consciousness emerges. It does not introduce a separate ontological order. It represents an advanced configuration of the same primitive conditions. Coherence appears as continuity of experience, interaction becomes relation to world and to self, and complexity transforms into integrated meaning.

At this level, the universe explores configurations not only through physical forms but through imagination. Imagination projects possible structures within the same ontological space. It does not escape reality. It extends it.

The infinity of configurations therefore exceeds mere physical variation. It encompasses every phenomenon that can be perceived, understood, or projected. Mathematical ideas, artistic images, and philosophical structures do not require a separate ontology. They constitute configurations of the same principle operating at reflexive levels of organization.

No ontological remainder remains outside the formula. It does not describe a class of phenomena. It expresses the structure of every possible phenomenon. The relation E = C × I × K ≠ 0 does not function as symbolic abstraction alone. It articulates the manner in which the universe operates and how every form of existence - physical or mental - becomes real.

Reality does not consist of rigid objects. It unfolds as a process through which existence explores itself within the indefinite space of its own configurations.

11. UNIVERSALITY AND THE EMPIRICAL STRUCTURE OF THE ELEMENTAL REASON

Every theory that claims universality faces a simple and unavoidable test: can a counterexample exist that overturns it? In the history of science and philosophy, entire systems have collapsed because a single phenomenon revealed their limit. Universality is therefore not established by accumulating numerous confirming instances. It is determined by clarifying the status of a possible exception.

A counterexample would consist of a phenomenon that exists yet exhibits neither coherence, nor interaction, nor complexity. If such a state could be conceived without contradiction, the formula would remain a broad generalization rather than a universal structure. Once an “existence” is examined without one of these dimensions, the very notion of existence loses its footing.

A state without coherence preserves no identity. Without identity, no distinction between states is possible, nor any distinction from absence. A phenomenon that cannot be distinguished cannot function as phenomenon. Coherence does not function as additional quality of reality. It constitutes the condition that allows a state to be articulated as “this” rather than as indeterminate void.

A state without interaction possesses no operative presence. Existence manifests as participation in networks of relations. Something affects or is affected, whether at physical, biological, cognitive, or conceptual levels. A reality that neither influences nor is influenced does not enter the operational domain. The issue does not concern ignorance or insufficient instruments. It concerns presence: without interaction, no state occupies a place within empirical reality.

A state without complexity lacks structure. Absolute uniformity without internal differentiation contains no configuration. Without configuration, no form of existence arises. Only an undefined abstraction remains, incapable of being articulated as phenomenon. Complexity here does not imply extreme intricacy. It denotes minimal organization sufficient to render a state structured and distinguishable.

These three criteria place the argument at a level independent of statistical induction. It does not claim that everything observed so far exhibits these dimensions and therefore will always do so. It establishes that coherence, interaction, and complexity constitute the conditions that make existence as concept possible. Any counterexample must itself be an instance of existence. To qualify as existence, it must satisfy precisely the conditions it would deny. The idea of exception therefore undermines itself.

This is the ground upon which The Elemental Reason stands as universal structure. It does not describe behavior within a particular domain of phenomena. It articulates the minimal structure that renders any phenomenon possible. Critique therefore requires reformulating the notion of existence in a way that allows existence to be conceived without identity, without relation, or without structure. Such reformulation empties the term “existence” of ontological content and reduces it to empty sign.

Universal structure often encounters classical suspicion directed at comprehensive principles - suspicion that the proposal belongs to metaphysics. The origin of this reaction is historical. Many philosophical systems have claimed universality by constructing categories detached from experience and by positing invisible foundations beyond the world they seek to explain. Clarifying the type of universality articulated here becomes decisive.

The Elemental Reason proceeds from what already manifests in every known phenomenon: reality operates only where coherence, interaction, and complexity are present. The formula E = C × I × K ≠ 0 functions as operational articulation. It expresses the conditions of a phenomenon’s presence within experience, not a hidden mechanism beyond it. It introduces no additional content into reality. It reduces reality to its minimal structure without excluding any phenomenon.

Empirical sciences reveal this structure in practice. Physics operates through relations of interaction and structures that preserve coherence through transformation. Biology describes complex organizations stabilized through interaction with environment. Neuroscience and psychology address dynamic configurations of experience that exhibit continuity, relation, and organization. In each domain, the ontological principle appears as condition of work itself: without coherence no identification of states occurs; without interaction no operative phenomenon arises; without complexity no functional structure emerges.

The Elemental Reason does not stand above science as external interpretation. It identifies a shared structure presupposed and employed in every act of measurement, conception, and description. Its universality does not arise from abstract postulate about totality. It follows from the fact that every phenomenon regarded as real already fulfills the conditions formalized by the law. Universality thus emerges from analysis of the boundary between existence and non-existence.

No ontological remainder remains outside this structure. Physical and abstract phenomena require no separate ontologies. Consciousness, imagination, mathematical concepts, and cultural structures enter as configurations of the same primitive conditions. Everything that can be perceived, understood, measured, or projected exhibits identity, relation, and organization. The formula functions not as narrow filter, but as framework encompassing every domain of reality.

From this follows an internal unity across levels of reality. The indefinite diversity of forms does not produce ontological fragmentation, because every form arises and persists within the same operative structure. The most visible manifestation of this unity appears in human consciousness, where sensory experience, bodily processes, abstract reasoning, and imaginative projection integrate into meaningful continuity. Physical, biological, cognitive, and imaginative levels connect without requiring separate categories of being.

The relation E = C × I × K ≠ 0 therefore stands as articulation of the minimal structure that renders reality possible and intelligible at every scale - from the most elementary phenomena to the highest forms of organization and meaning. Its universality does not depend on rhetorical ambition. It follows from the nature of existence itself: every phenomenon, simply by being phenomenon, demonstrates the structure that makes it possible.

12. THE INTELLIGIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE STRUCTURE OF MEANING

One of the most enduring questions in the history of thought concerns the intelligibility of the universe. From ancient philosophy to modern science, it has been observed that the human mind discovers laws, structures, and patterns that describe reality with remarkable precision. The issue does not concern only how the universe functions. It concerns the fact that a particular biological configuration - the human brain - is capable of articulating that functioning.

Traditional responses have oscillated between two poles. One treats the mind as mirror of reality without clarifying the basis of their correspondence. The other relocates the foundation in a pre-established harmony or in identification of reality with mind itself. Both approaches leave unresolved the central issue: what makes structural correspondence between universe and understanding possible?

When existence operates through coherence, interaction, and complexity, consciousness represents an advanced configuration of the same structure. It preserves coherence as phenomenal continuity of experience. It manifests interaction as active relation to the world and to its own internal states. It realizes complexity as integration of information into meaningful organization. Consciousness does not stand opposed to reality as foreign instance. It constitutes a reflexive organization of reality at a higher level of articulation.

The intelligibility of the universe thereby acquires a clear ontological grounding. The human mind is a configuration of the universe operating under the same principle that structures reality itself. Correspondence between mind and world arises from shared architecture. When consciousness articulates structures of reality, it identifies an order that includes the very act of understanding.

Meaning does not appear as addition to existence. It expresses the manner in which a configuration of reality becomes aware of its own structure. Coherence appears within meaning as semantic continuity. An idea preserves identity through interpretation and development. Interaction appears as relation among ideas, experiences, and world, rendering meaning dynamic rather than isolated abstraction. Complexity appears as integrated organization of elements into patterns that allow recognition and interpretation.

Meaning thus follows the same ontological principle that produces every other phenomenon. The mind does not generate meaning from emptiness. It organizes configurations that operate within the structure of existence. The capacity to construct universal theories arises as expression of this structure - a system becoming reflexive toward itself.

Imagination extends this process. It explores possible configurations prior to physical actualization. Through imagination, reality articulates variants of its own structure, expanding meaning into the domain of potentiality. Creativity emerges as advanced form of interaction through which the universe projects itself by means of consciousness.

Within this framework, the traditional separation between ontology and epistemology loses its foundation. Existence and understanding represent two dimensions of the same operative structure. Science, philosophy, and art appear as modes through which reality organizes and explores its own meaning.

The intelligibility of the universe and the possibility of understanding rest upon the same ground: coherence preserving identity, interaction generating relation, and complexity providing structure. In this unity, mind and universe do not occupy separate poles. They form structural continuity. Meaning emerges as the process through which reality articulates itself at a reflexive level, making it possible for existence to be recognized within existence itself.

13. THE ELEMENTAL REASON AS THE FIRST LAW AND THE ONTOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF EVERYTHING

In every epoch of intellectual history, there has been a search for the most fundamental principle capable of explaining reality. Early philosophy sought the basic substance of the world. Modern physics formulated universal laws governing matter and energy. Contemporary efforts aim at unifying fundamental forces within comprehensive models. In most of these approaches, existence itself is taken as a given starting point, while inquiry focuses on how it behaves.

A more foundational approach seeks to determine the minimal condition that makes existence possible at all. At this level, the principle does not describe the behavior of entities but the structure that allows them to be. The formula

E = C × I × K ≠ 0

is articulated as a description of this structure: coherence preserves identity through change; interaction connects each state to a network of relations; complexity provides the internal organization that renders a configuration distinguishable.

Physical laws describe how phenomena operate within reality: gravitation explains attraction between masses; quantum mechanics describes probabilistic behavior of particles; thermodynamics regulates energetic transformations. These laws presuppose the existence of entities and structures subject to them. At a deeper level, one must ask what makes it possible for entities and laws to possess operational meaning in the first place. The ontological principle of existence stands as the horizon within which every law can function.

This shifts the perspective from an ontology of substance to an ontology of configuration. Reality appears as a network of configurations in which coherence, interaction, and complexity constitute the operative conditions of every form of existence. Physics, biology, and the sciences of consciousness emerge as domains studying different configurations within the same foundational architecture, without being reducible to one another.

Within this framework, the search for a “Theory of Everything” acquires a new significance. Traditional efforts have aimed to unify physical laws in a single mathematical formulation, concentrating on how the universe behaves. An ontological approach seeks instead to determine the minimal conditions that must be present for any mechanism, law, or phenomenon to exist at all. Such a theory does not replace the equations of physics or biological models; it articulates the horizon within which they become possible.

The universality of this principle does not lie in its inclusion of as many phenomena as possible within a single model. It lies in the fact that every possible phenomenon operates within the structure it describes. Elementary particles, biological organisms, social systems, mathematical ideas, and conscious experiences represent different configurations of the same ontological architecture. The diversity of reality appears as infinite variation in the ways coherence, interaction, and complexity combine.

An ontological theory of everything must satisfy several requirements: universality, absence of ontological residues, and the capacity to include phenomena of meaning and consciousness without artificial division. A structure that encompasses both physical and mental phenomena without generating incompatible categories achieves a level of unity that avoids both reductionism and fragmentation.

In this sense, the First Law of Reality does not present itself as formula that closes the universe into rigid system. It expresses the minimal condition that keeps reality open to infinite configurations. It does not restrict scientific exploration; it situates it within horizon where inquiry becomes meaningful as process through which reality articulates its own structure through consciousness.

An ontological theory of everything does not aim to end inquiry but to identify the foundation that makes inquiry possible. Between structural unity and diversity of forms, existence appears as process of configurations operating under the same fundamental principle. Within this space, the First Law of Reality articulates the condition that allows the universe to be and to continue generating new forms of organization and meaning.

14. AFTERWORD

Configuration as the Foundation of Reality and the Ontological Unification of Knowledge

The history of human thought has been built upon a silent assumption: reality exists as given substrate, while the task of knowledge consists in describing its behavior. Matter, energy, space, and time have been treated as starting points, as bases upon which laws, theories, and models are constructed. This mode of thinking has produced extraordinary achievements, yet it has left untouched a fundamental question: what makes it possible for something to be measurable empirical reality at all?

The Elemental Reason shifts the center of gravity of this question. Attention moves from “things” to the operative conditions that allow things to appear as phenomena. In this shift, reality is not treated as collection of substances but as result of configurations that fulfill minimal ontological conditions. Matter, in this perspective, appears as visible form of more fundamental structure: the co-presence of coherence, interaction, and complexity.

Coherence guarantees the minimal identity of state through change. Every phenomenon recognized as “the same” across interval of time preserves form of stability that distinguishes it from immediate dissolution. Interaction places this state within network of relations; it influences and is influenced, participates in circulation of energy and information, enters dynamics that render it present to observation. Complexity provides internal differentiation; configuration without internal organization offers no distinguishable structure upon which measurement can operate.

The formula E = C × I × K ≠ 0 articulates this co-presence as condition of existence. It expresses the fact that empirical reality appears only where these three dimensions are simultaneously active. Zero in any one of them does not represent alternative mode of being; it represents disappearance of configuration as measurable phenomenon. At this point, the transformation introduced by the formula becomes clear: existence is not treated as substrate upon which properties are placed, but as effect of measurable configuration.

This reformulation reaches the very foundation of traditional perception of matter. Matter appears as result of stability, interaction, and internal organization; it does not stand prior to these dimensions but emerges from them. Configuration becomes primary, while “thing” appears as designation of structure that preserves identity, enters relations, and possesses organization. In this sense, reality assumes form that is both mathematically clearer and empirically more tangible: every laboratory measurement, every observation of physical, biological, or cognitive system captures precisely these dimensions under different names.

Scientific practice continuously demonstrates this. Force measured in mechanics, binding energy in nuclear physics, surface tension in cellular biology, reaction rate in chemistry, architecture of information system - all are expressions of coherence, interaction, and complexity. Science has always operated upon this structure, measuring it in specialized forms without articulating it as general ontological principle. The Elemental Reason renders this fundamental unity explicit, raising it from implicit level of practice to explicit level of concept.

The consequences are far-reaching. Traditional divisions between domains of knowledge appear as differences of method and scale rather than ontological separations. Physics studies configurations at elementary energetic levels; biology studies organized configurations in living systems; neuroscience and psychology describe reflective configurations; information theory and mathematics explore forms of symbolic organization. In each case, the operative dimensions remain the same. Coherence preserves identity of system, interaction connects it with environment, and complexity articulates its internal structure. Ontological unification appears as logical consequence of this fact.

Within this horizon, consciousness assumes new place. It appears as configuration in which coherence, interaction, and complexity reach reflective level. The phenomenal continuity of experience expresses coherence; dynamic relation with world and internal states expresses interaction; integration of information into meaningful structures expresses complexity. Mind does not stand before reality as separate entity but as configuration of the same ontological foundation. For this reason reality is intelligible: the structure that produces phenomenon is the same structure that produces meaning.

This convergence of ontology and epistemology strengthens the universal character of The Elemental Reason. Measurement, perception, and understanding are not external processes imposed upon alien reality; they are ways in which configuration of reality becomes visible to itself. Every experiment, every instrument, every theoretical formulation operates within the same fundamental structure. For this reason, the multiplicative formula is not symbolic figure but clear expression of minimal condition that makes existence as phenomenon and knowledge as act possible.

The implications of this perspective extend across all domains of human knowledge. In the natural sciences, it provides horizon within which particular laws are understood as configurations of universal dimensions. In biology and the life sciences, it situates organism as structure that preserves identity through continuous interaction and complex organization. In cognitive science and philosophy, it connects meaning with structure of existence itself. In art and culture, it renders creation exploration of new configurations within the same ontological matrix.

The Elemental Reason thus presents profound reformulation of reality: from ontology of substance to ontology of configuration. Reality appears as network of stabilized and organized relations in which every phenomenon takes form through co-presence of coherence, interaction, and complexity. This reformulation ontologically unifies what is perceived, what is measured, and what is understood. Its force lies in the fact that it does not add speculative layer to reality but articulates structure that reality continuously demonstrates.

In this sense, The Elemental Reason appears as clear formulation of principle that makes the universe exist in measurable and intelligible way. It offers horizon within which infinite diversity of phenomena preserves its ontological unity, and within which scientific inquiry assumes meaning as continuous articulation of the same fundamental structure.

Empirical reality does not stand in front of C, I and K as something later described by them. It consists in their configuration. What is called “real” is not a substrate to which these dimensions are applied; it is the stabilized outcome of their joint operation. Every physical system, every biological organism, every conscious process appears as a concrete configuration in which coherence, interaction and complexity are active together.

In this sense, reality is not merely compatible with C, I and K; it is constituted through them. Whenever something exists, it exists as structured continuity, as participation within a field of interaction and as organized differentiation. These are not external conditions placed upon being. They are the generative structure through which being takes form. Reality is the ongoing production of configurations within this minimal structure.

The Elemental Reason therefore does not claim authority over reality. It identifies the structural law through which reality exists at all. C, I and K are not descriptors of phenomena; they are the constitutive dimensions through which phenomena come to be. The First Law of Reality expresses this condition: everything that is real is real as configuration of C, I and K.

Methodological Foundations

The Elemental Reason emerges from a structural analysis of empirical reality. Its starting point is the operational structure implicit in scientific practice: what must be present for something to be identifiable, measurable and describable as real.

Across physics, chemistry, biology and the sciences of mind, empirical investigation consistently operates under three minimal conditions. A system must preserve sufficient structural continuity to be tracked across change. It must participate in causal interaction in order to register measurable effects. It must exhibit internal organization that allows differentiation and structured behavior. These conditions are not introduced as abstract categories; they are extracted from the operational logic of measurement itself.

The formulation

E = C × I × K ≠ 0

expresses this minimal structure. It formalizes the ontological condition under which any empirical phenomenon can exist as a phenomenon. The formula does not describe local mechanisms, but the structural requirement that makes mechanisms possible.

Modern physics treats matter as organized interaction rather than inert substance. Field theory, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics describe stability as maintained configuration. Systems biology understands living organisms as dynamically regulated networks of interaction. Neuroscience and cognitive science associate consciousness with highly integrated and structured processes. In each case, empirical reality appears as configuration rather than as isolated substrate.

The Elemental Reason generalizes this structural insight. Coherence expresses the continuity that allows identity across transformation. Interaction expresses causal participation within a relational field. Complexity expresses the minimal internal organization required for structure. When any of these dimensions falls below an operative threshold, empirical identifiability disappears.

The law is structural in status. It articulates the minimal ontological horizon within which empirical science functions. Its scope is universal because any phenomenon that qualifies as real must satisfy the operational conditions it describes.

Its scientific standing follows from this operational character. Coherence, interaction and complexity are measurable in concrete domains, and the degradation of any of them correlates with the loss of stability, structure or presence in empirical systems. A counterexample would require the demonstration of a phenomenon retaining empirical existence while lacking one of these dimensions.

In this framework, ontology and epistemology converge structurally. The same conditions that make existence possible also make knowledge possible. This is not a philosophical choice but a structural necessity: a measuring instrument is itself a configuration satisfying C×I×K, and can therefore detect only that which also satisfies these conditions. Knowledge is possible because knower and known share the same ontological foundation.

The present formulation does not rely on extended citation because it does not introduce new empirical data, nor does it depend on the authority of a particular theoretical school. The argument rests upon concepts already foundational within the scientific corpus: structural stability, causal interaction, organized complexity, energetic transformation, systemic integration and measurable change.

These concepts belong to the shared operational language of physics, chemistry, biology, systems theory and the sciences of mind. They are not specialized hypotheses tied to a single model, but structural features presupposed across empirical disciplines. The analysis undertaken here consists in making explicit the minimal ontological structure already operative within those domains.

For this reason, the absence of extensive references reflects the generality of the framework. The argument synthesizes and formalizes principles embedded in the methodological fabric of contemporary science into a single ontological expression.

The Elemental Reason thus articulates the operative foundation underlying empirical reality. It identifies the structural condition that allows phenomena, laws and theories to appear and to function within a unified ontological horizon.

Erl Kodra

https://www.theelementalreason.com/

contact@theelementalreason.com