Бесплатный фрагмент - Processual ontology

INTRODUCTION: ASSERTION

Methodological Preface

Processual ontology establishes the necessary structure of reality through analysis of the conditions of possibility of existence. Philosophical theory requires no empirical grounding — it reveals the ontological foundations of any possible experience.

Examples from quantum physics, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology illustrate the universality of the principle R = O (O). Scientific phenomena acquire ontological transparency within the processual framework. Paradoxes arising from substantial thinking dissolve in the transition to processual ontology.

The boundary between philosophy and science remains clear. Philosophy establishes ontological structure. Science investigates concrete mechanisms. Philosophy demonstrates the necessity of the observation process. Science studies its particular forms.

The term “observation” denotes the fundamental operation of distinction through which the indeterminate becomes determinate. This is an ontological operation preceding the division into observer and observed. The limitations of language, structured substantially, are overcome through rigorous definition of terms in a processual key.

Central Thesis

Reality is the process of observation applied to itself. R = O (O). This is not metaphor, not simplification, not model — this is precise structural description of existence.

Existence is process, not substance. This process is observation in the broadest sense. Observation is directed at itself. From this single principle derives the entire architecture of reality.

Observation here is understood not as a psychological act requiring consciousness or subject. Observation is the fundamental operation of distinction, the transition from indeterminate to determinate. Quantum phenomena illustrate the universal principle of observation. In processual ontology, measurement is understood as a particular case of transition from indeterminate to determinate through an act of distinction. This is a philosophical interpretation offering a conceptual framework for understanding observation’s role in physical processes. Chemical reaction represents mutual determination of molecules through selective interaction. Perception is observation. Thinking is observation. The difference between these processes — in degree of complexity, not in nature.

The formula R = O (O) asserts: reality is not observed by something external to it. Reality is self-observation. The process of observation, directed at itself, constitutes everything that exists. No observer outside the process. No observed before the process. Observer and observed — poles arising within the process.

Self-reference does not generate a vicious circle. Processual self-reference is productive. Each act of self-observation deepens the process, creating new levels of organization. Simple distinction becomes perception. Perception becomes awareness. Awareness becomes reflection. Reflection becomes self-knowledge. All levels are preserved and included in higher ones.

Process requires no foundation outside itself. It is self-grounded through self-actualization. The assertion “everything is process” is itself process. Theory completely describes itself in its own terms without remainder.

This is not solipsism. World is not created by individual consciousness. Individual consciousness — local intensification of the universal process of self-observation. Multiple consciousnesses are possible since process can have multiple centers of intensification.

This is not subjective idealism. Observation requires no subject. Subject arises as stable pattern within the observation process. First process, then subject.

This is not panpsychism. Not everything possesses consciousness. Consciousness — specific organization of the observation process, arising at sufficient complexity of self-reference. Stone has no consciousness. Stone participates in the process of mutual determination at the level of physical interactions.

This is not reductionism. Higher is not reduced to lower. Consciousness is not reduced to neural processes. Neural processes and consciousness — different levels of organization of single process. Each level possesses its own regularities.

Processual ontology asserts: there is only one process. All diversity of phenomena — modes of its organization. Matter — stabilized patterns of process. Consciousness — reflexive patterns of process. Space — structure of mutual determination. Time — internal dynamics of process.

No essences — only processes. Thing is not, thing happens. Stability of thing — constancy of pattern reproduction. Atom — not particle but stable configuration of process. Molecule — more complex configuration. Cell — self-reproducing configuration. Organism — integrated system of processes.

No external position for observing reality exists. Any observation occurs from within process. Objectivity — not view from nowhere but structural invariance within process. Scientific laws describe stable patterns of process.

Why New Ontology Is Necessary

Every existing ontology contains fundamental contradiction. It requires foundation that cannot be grounded within its framework.

Materialism postulates matter as primary substance. Matter cannot ground itself. Observer of matter is required — one who establishes its existence. Observer cannot be material, otherwise circle arises. Materialism secretly presupposes non-material position of observation.

Idealism postulates spirit, idea, or consciousness as primary. Idea requires bearer. Consciousness requires content. Spirit requires manifestation. Idealism must introduce something different from the ideal for complete description. Spatial metaphors, temporal sequences, causal connections — all borrowed from the material.

Dualism recognizes two substances — material and ideal. The interaction problem is unsolvable. If substances are absolutely different, they cannot interact. If they can interact, they are not absolutely different. Third element required, connecting them. Dualism becomes trialism, then pluralism.

Neutral monism postulates third substance generating material and mental. This substance itself requires grounding. It must be knowable, but knowledge occurs through the mental. Circle reproduces at new level.

Panpsychism attributes consciousness to everything existing. Multiplying consciousnesses to infinity explains nothing. Combination problem — how multiple micro-consciousnesses yield single macro-consciousness — unsolvable. Integration principle required, external to consciousnesses themselves.

Structural inconsistency is universal. Each ontology uses concepts from its opposite. Materialism operates with laws — ideal constructs. Idealism uses spatiotemporal images — material metaphors. None is self-sufficient.

Regress of foundations is infinite in substantial thinking. Substance requires cause of existence. Cause requires its cause. Stopping at “first cause” or “necessary existence” — arbitrary termination of explanation.

Dogmatism — only alternative to regress in substantial ontologies. Declared: “matter simply is” or “God exists necessarily”. Grounding replaced by declaration. Philosophy capitulates before arbitrary postulate.

Processual solution avoids both regress and dogmatism. Process requires no external foundation. It grounds itself through self-actualization. Grounding and grounded — moments of single process.

Requirements for new ontology are perfectly clear. Minimum initial principles — ideally one. Self-consistency at all levels. Ability to describe itself in own terms. No external postulates.

Processual ontology satisfies all requirements. One principle: R = O (O). Complete self-consistency: theory describes itself as process. No external postulates: process is self-grounded.

The minimalism of solution is revolutionary. Instead of multiplying essences — reduction to one process. Instead of hierarchy of substances — levels of process organization. Instead of external foundations — self-grounding.

All classical problems of philosophy arise from substantial thinking. Mind-body problem — from division into two substances. Problem of consciousness — from attempt to derive mental from material. Problem of free will — from opposing subject and world. Problem of time — from representing it as container of events.

In processual ontology these problems are not solved — they dissolve. No substances — no problem of interaction. Mental and physical — levels of single process. Subject — mode of process, not opposed to it. Time — internal structure of process.

Transition from substance to process is not replacement of one foundation with another. It is exit from the very logic of foundations. Process is not foundation of reality. Process is reality.

The formula R = O (O) is not postulate among other possible postulates. It is minimal description of the very fact of existence. Less means nothing. More is redundant.

Ontology must explain not only world but also itself. Materialism cannot materialistically explain existence of materialist theory. Idealism cannot idealistically ground necessity of idealism. Processual ontology describes itself as moment of reality’s self-knowledge process.

Philosophy has moved in circles of substantial alternatives for centuries. Materialism replaced by idealism, idealism by new materialism. Dualism reborn in new forms. Circle cannot be broken from within. Exit into new dimension necessary.

Processual ontology — not new position in old dispute. It is sublation of dispute itself through elimination of its presuppositions. No substances whose primacy can be disputed. There is process within which all distinctions arise, including distinction between material and ideal.

The proof that follows will demonstrate necessity and sufficiency of processual principle. From R = O (O) the entire architecture of existence will be derived. Without additional postulates. Without hidden presuppositions. Without appeal to intuition or faith.

Reader need accept nothing on faith. Each step will be grounded. Each transition will be necessary. Movement from principle to consequences will have the logical transparency of geometric proof.

CHAPTER 1: THE PRINCIPLE

Reality is the process of observation applied to itself. This formula R = O (O) contains the entire structure of existence. Proving this assertion requires three steps: establishing the ontological nature of observation, revealing the mechanism of self-reference, demonstrating the absolute ontological minimum.

1.1. The Ontological Nature of Observation

Observation is the operation of distinction. Not a psychological act, not a property of consciousness, but the fundamental process through which the indeterminate becomes determinate. Distinction is primary relative to what is distinguished. Without the operation of distinction, it is impossible to separate the existing from the non-existing, something from nothing, one from another.

Let us examine the structure of any assertion of existence. The assertion “X exists” presupposes the distinction of X from not-X. This distinction cannot be a property of X itself, since X is not yet determined before the distinction. The distinction cannot be a property of not-X for the same reason. Therefore, distinction is the process that constitutes both poles.

Observation does not require a pre-existing observer. Observer and observed arise as poles of the observation process. The process is primary relative to its poles. The assertion of an observer’s existence before observation contains a contradiction: it already presupposes observation of this observer.

The traditional schema “subject observes object” is ontologically untenable. It postulates two ready-made poles and a relation between them. But where did these poles come from? How were they determined before interaction? Any determination is already the result of distinction, that is, observation.

The correct schema: observation unfolds into observer and observed. The process generates its poles, not the reverse. This is not a temporal sequence but an ontological structure. The poles exist only in the process and through the process.

Observation as distinction is not added to reality from outside. Reality is where distinction occurs. The undistinguished is ontologically equivalent to the non-existent. This is not an epistemological assertion about knowledge but an ontological assertion about the structure of existence.

The basic operation of observation is simple: establishing a boundary. The boundary does not exist before distinction. It arises in the act of distinction. But the boundary is not static. It is continuously reproduced by the process of distinction. Cessation of the process means disappearance of the boundary and collapse of the distinguished into the indeterminate.

Hence the processual nature of observation. Observation cannot be an instantaneous act or static state. It is a continuous process of maintaining distinctness. Stopping the process means disappearance of the observed.

Observation is not passive registration of the ready-made. It is active constitution of the observed through distinction. The observed exists as observed only in the process of observation. Outside this process there is no determinacy, therefore no existence in determinate form.

This does not mean that observation creates from nothing. Observation actualizes the potential through distinction. The potential is not hidden actual, but the indeterminate capable of determination. Actualization is the transition from indeterminacy to determinacy through the process of distinction.

The fundamentality of observation manifests at all levels of reality. Quantum mechanics provides rich material for philosophical analysis of observation’s role. In processual ontology, quantum phenomena receive natural interpretation. Superposition reflects ontological indeterminacy before the act of distinction. Entanglement shows the indivisibility of the observation process. Complementarity illustrates the dependence of the observed on the mode of observation. This philosophical reading accords with the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics but does not dictate a specific physical interpretation. Measurement is the process of transition from the indeterminate to the determinate. This is observation.

Chemical interaction is mutual observation of molecules. A molecule “recognizes” another molecule through selective interaction. This recognition is a form of distinction, therefore observation. The specificity of chemical reactions is based on molecules’ ability to distinguish each other.

Biological perception is complexified observation. The organism actively distinguishes environmental signals. But this distinction is not added to physico-chemical processes from outside. It is the organization of these processes into a system of higher-order distinctions.

Mental processes are observation of observations. The thought of red does not merely register red but observes the process of perceiving red. This second-order observation creates a new level of reality — the mental, not reducible to the physical but not separate from it.

The ontological status of observation does not depend on the presence of consciousness. Consciousness is a specific form of self-observation, but not a condition of observation in general. An electron “observes” the electromagnetic field by reacting to it. This reaction is a form of distinction, therefore observation.

Observation is not anthropomorphic projection onto nature. On the contrary, human observation is a particular case of the universal process. The specificity of human observation lies in its reflexivity — the ability to observe observation itself. But the basic structure is the same: distinction constituting the distinguished.

Thus, observation is the fundamental process of distinction through which the potential becomes actual, the indeterminate becomes determinate. This process does not require a pre-existing observer but generates observer and observed as its poles. Observation is ontologically primary, since without distinction existence in determinate form is impossible.

Processual ontology offers philosophical dissolution of the conceptual paradoxes of quantum mechanics through changing ontological presuppositions. The measurement problem arises from the notion of pre-existing properties. In the processual framework, properties are constituted in observation, do not exist before it. Apparent non-local influence in entangled systems becomes natural if we understand them not as separate objects but as aspects of a single process. Schrödinger’s cat paradox loses its edge upon recognizing that macroscopic objects are in continuous processes of mutual observation with their environment. These dissolutions are conceptual, not physical. They show how changing philosophical presuppositions eliminates apparent contradictions.

1.2. The Mechanism of Self-Reference

The formula R = O (O) asserts: reality is observation applied to itself. This is not a metaphorical description but a precise structural definition. Self-reference is not a vicious circle but a productive process generating all the complexity of existence.

Let us examine the structure of self-reference in detail. O (O) means: the observation process takes itself as object. But how can a process observe itself? Does this not require splitting into observing and observed, contradicting the unity of the process?

The contradiction is apparent. It arises from a static understanding of self-reference. In a static schema, a paradox indeed arises: to observe itself, the process must be simultaneously subject and object, which is impossible. But the process is not static. It unfolds in time.

Dynamic self-reference works through temporal displacement. The process at moment t+1 observes itself at moment t. This does not require splitting the process. The same process, continuing, turns to its previous state. Unity of the process is preserved through temporal continuity.

But this is only the first level of understanding. Deeper analysis shows: self-reference is not merely possible, it is necessary for the process’s existence. A process not relating to itself cannot maintain its identity. It would disintegrate into unconnected moments.

Self-reference creates feedback. The process affects itself through its results. This influence modifies the process, which changes the results, which again affects the process. A recursive loop arises in which the process continuously redefines itself.

This loop is not closed in bad infinity. Each cycle adds new determination. The process does not merely repeat but deepens. Each self-observation adds a new layer to the process. A spiral of increasing complexity arises.

The strange loop of self-reference has special topology. It is not a circle on a plane but a spiral in higher-dimensional space. Each turn brings the process to a new level. Yet connection with all previous levels is preserved.

Mathematical analogy: a recursive function calling itself with modified parameters. But in our case the function does not merely call itself — it modifies itself through each call. The process rewrites its own code during execution.

Self-reference generates paradoxical causality. The process is the cause of itself. This is not a logical error but a structural feature. In linear causality, cause precedes effect. In circular causality, cause and effect form a loop.

Self-grounding through self-actualization is the key mechanism. The process needs no external foundation. It grounds itself by actualizing itself. Actualization is proof of possibility. Possibility realizes itself in actualization.

This solves the problem of first beginning. No need to seek first cause or ultimate ground. The process is beginningless in the sense that its beginning is contained within itself. It is causa sui — cause of itself, not in a static but in a processual sense.

Self-reference creates the internal space of the process. Referring to itself, the process creates distance between its observing and observed aspects. This distance is not a rupture but internal tension, the driving force of development.

Content arises in this space. The process observes not emptiness but its own structure. This structure becomes the content of the next act of observation. Content generates new content in an infinite generative sequence.

Self-reference explains the stability of the process. A linear process without feedback would quickly exhaust itself. A self-referential process maintains itself through continuous self-renewal. It feeds on its own activity.

Critical point: self-reference does not require complete self-knowledge. The process need not encompass itself wholly at each moment. Partial self-reference suffices, gradually expanding. Completeness is achieved not in static grasping but in dynamic unfolding.

Self-reference has levels of depth. Simplest level: the process registers its states. Second level: the process observes its observations. Third: observes the observation of observations. Theoretically the number of levels is unlimited.

Each new level of self-reference creates a new dimension of reality. The physical — first level, where the process simply actualizes. The biological — second, where the process regulates itself. The mental — third, where the process becomes aware of itself. The reflexive — fourth, where the process analyzes its awareness.

The formula R = O (O) captures this multi-level structure in maximally compressed form. R (reality) does not exist separately from O (O) (self-observation). Reality is self-observation unfolded in the fullness of its levels and interconnections.

Self-reference explains the creative character of reality. The process does not merely reproduce itself but produces the new through combining elements of its structure. Each act of self-observation opens new possibilities of organization.

The mechanism of self-reference is universal. It works at all levels of organization: from elementary particles, whose properties are determined through interaction with each other, to human consciousness, continuously relating to itself. The difference is only in the complexity and depth of self-reference.

Self-reference is not a mystical property but a structural necessity. Any stable process must relate to itself to maintain identity. Without self-reference the process disintegrates into unconnected events. Self-reference is the condition of processual integrity.

Thus, the mechanism of self-reference consists in the observation process referring to itself, creating a productive loop of self-determination. This loop is not a vicious circle but a spiral of development. Through self-reference the process maintains its identity, generates content, and develops toward increasing complexity.

1.3. The Absolute Ontological Minimum

All existing ontologies contain excessive elements. Materialism postulates matter, space, time, laws of nature, causality — a multitude of elements irreducible to each other. Idealism requires a bearer of ideas, a principle of their unfolding, a ground for their ordering. Dualism doubles the problem, postulating two substances and a mysterious mechanism of their interaction. Panpsychism attributes consciousness to every particle, multiplying entities to infinity. Neutral monism introduces a third substance from which the material and mental supposedly derive.

Processual ontology: zero substances, zero entities, one process. R = O (O) — this is not a thing among things but the condition of possibility for any things. This is the true ontological minimum.

Proving minimality requires showing that any attempt at further reduction leads to collapse of the explanatory schema. Let us examine systematically what happens when attempting to remove each element of the formula.

Attempting to remove observation. Without observation there is no distinction. Without distinction it is impossible to differentiate the existing from the non-existing, something from nothing, one from another. Reality collapses into absolute indeterminacy, which is ontologically equivalent to non-being. Observation is irreducible.

Attempting to remove self-reference. A process without self-reference requires external grounding. But where does this ground come from? It either exists (then its existence needs explaining) or does not exist (then it cannot be a ground). An infinite regress or arbitrary stopping point results. Self-reference is the only way to avoid this.

Attempting to remove processuality. Static self-relation is empty tautology: A = A. From it, multiplicity, change, development cannot be derived. Static self-reference generates nothing new. Only process through temporal unfolding creates productive self-reference.

Therefore, the formula R = O (O) represents the absolute minimum of elements necessary for a non-contradictory description of reality. Less means nothing.

Let us compare ontological economy in detail. Materialism begins with matter. But what is matter? An aggregate of particles? But particles are defined through properties. Properties manifest in interactions. Interactions presuppose space and time. Space and time require metrics. Metrics are based on distinctions. Distinctions are a form of observation. Materialism implicitly presupposes observation while denying its fundamentality.

Moreover, materialism cannot explain laws of nature. Why precisely these laws and not others? Why do laws exist at all? Why does matter obey them? Each law — an additional irreducible element of ontology. The standard model of physics contains dozens of arbitrary constants. This is not an economical ontology.

Idealism begins with ideas or consciousness. But ideas must exist somewhere. A bearer is needed — absolute consciousness, world spirit, transcendental ego. This bearer must have structure, principles of organization, dynamics of development. Each of these elements requires grounding. A no less complex system of postulates emerges.

Idealism also faces the problem of multiplicity. If everything is idea, why are there many ideas? What determines their difference? How does plurality of individual consciousnesses arise from unified consciousness? A principle of individuation is required, which becomes an additional element of ontology.

Dualism honestly acknowledges the irreducibility of the material and mental. But the price of this honesty is doubling ontological problems. Two substances need explaining instead of one. Plus the mechanism of interaction, which cannot belong to either substance (otherwise one would be reducible to the other). At least three irreducible elements result.

Panpsychism attempts to solve the problem of consciousness by attributing it to everything. But this means every elementary particle has primitive consciousness. Billions of billions of proto-consciousnesses that somehow combine into unified human consciousness. The combination problem is no less complex than the emergence problem. Plus all the complexity of the physical world remains.

Emergentism asserts consciousness arising from complex organization of matter. But this is not a solution but a statement of fact. How exactly does quantitative complexification generate the qualitatively new? What makes a certain level of complexity the threshold of consciousness? Without answers to these questions, emergentism remains description, not explanation.

Neutral monism postulates a third substance, neutral between the material and mental. But this merely pushes the problem back. Now the nature of this neutral substance and the mechanism of its differentiation into material and mental need explaining. The result is not simplification but complication.

Processual ontology postulates nothing beyond the process of self-observation. Matter is stable patterns of this process at the basic level of organization. Consciousness is the same process at the reflexive level. Laws of nature are invariant structures of the process. Space and time are forms of the process’s unfolding.

All traditional elements of ontology are derived from a single principle. This is not reductionism, since higher levels of organization possess properties irreducible to lower ones. But neither is it pluralism, since all levels are forms of a single process. This is ontological minimalism: minimum initial principles with maximum explanatory power.

Important: minimalism does not mean simplicity of result. From a simple principle, infinitely complex structure can unfold. A fractal is generated by a simple formula yet has infinite detail. So too reality: the simple principle of self-observation generates all observed complexity of the world.

The advantage of minimalism is not merely economy of thought. Minimal ontology has minimum arbitrary elements. Each postulate is an admission of the limit of explanation. The fewer postulates, the further these limits are pushed back.

Critical test: internal consistency. Materialism describes itself in terms of ideas (theories, models, laws). Idealism uses spatial-temporal metaphors (unfolding, movement of spirit). Each ontology secretly borrows from its opposite.

Processual ontology describes itself in its own terms. The assertion “everything is the process of observation” is itself a process of observation of the process of observation. The theory practices what it preaches. It is self-consistent at the meta-level.

This is the only ontology that does not require an external position for its own grounding. It self-grounds through self-actualization. The act of formulating the theory is confirmation of the theory. Processual ontology does not merely describe reality — it participates in its self-description.

Objection: is this principle not too abstract? How to derive the concrete richness of the world from it? Answer: abstractness is strength, not weakness. The more abstract the principle, the more universal its application. Concreteness arises through specification of the universal principle in different contexts.