Document is current

Article History

Received: 28 November 2025

Revised: 1 March 2026

Accepted: 10 March 2026

First Online: 15 April 2026

Declarations

:

: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

: This work, like the two preceding parts of the trilogy, does not claim absolute completeness or flawlessness. A substantial portion of its propositions calls for further formal elaboration, more rigorous justification, and empirical verification. At points, it may appear that the scope of what is stated exceeds the level of evidence provided; however, this asymmetry is conditioned by the interdisciplinary character of the proposed framework and by the objective impossibility of fully encompassing all levels of analysis within a single article. In this sense, the reductions employed here should be regarded as a methodological necessity rather than a deficiency, insofar as they preserve the conceptual coherence of the exposition. Such a state of affairs does not diminish the scientific value or interest of the work, but rather points toward the direction of further research and deeper formalization.Contemporary science often prioritizes the pursuit of “new discoveries,” whereas the vast body of accumulated knowledge already affords opportunities to reconsider established phenomena from a fundamentally different vantage point. The aim of this work has been less to present a finished system than to delineate an alternative perspective: to demonstrate the unity of scales, laws, and principles of interaction through the lens of ontology. The question at stake is not only how the world is constituted, but–above all– why it is as it is, and what heuristic value this may have for understanding all forms of intelligence and the nature of consciousness.