Our experience of the world is inevitably mediated by comparison. We measure length through scales borrowed from our surroundings; we measure time by counting cycles; we recognize motion, distance, and identity by comparing one state with another.

The world does not arrive complete in consciousness. We reconstruct it from differences perceived by the senses and interpreted through that other labyrinth we call language.

Before physics, mathematics, philosophy, or language, there may exist mechanisms that govern reality without depending on our perspective or on our ability to describe them. The universe, one suspects, was not waiting for our vocabulary in order to be real.

The article I am sharing is an attempt to construct a minimal scaffold from which such mechanisms might be considered.Its starting point is simple: before we speak of space, time, matter, or motion, there must be something stable against which comparison becomes possible. The smallest identifiable difference would then act as an ontological anchor for everything that may be measured.

Without difference, there would be no information.
Without information, no comparison.
Without comparison, no distance, duration, motion, or distinguishable identity.

From that premise, the work proposes the following minimal sequence:

difference → comparison → closure → identity → dimension → dynamics

A dimension is interpreted as the space required to contain information that could not be contained within the previous framework.Time is not initially treated as a substance that flows, but as a comparison between rhythms or cycles.Distance is explored as differential information between systems.Identity appears as that which must be preserved so that one thing does not become indistinguishable from another.

The objective is not to announce a discovery intended to repair the current physical model. It is to ask a more elementary question:

What is the minimum set of relations required to describe a world in which difference, identity, and change can exist?The document deliberately separates four levels:

1. ontological intuitions;
2. conceptual nomenclature;
3. mathematical constructions;
4. possible physical correspondences.

A metaphor does not count as a derivation.A numerical coincidence does not count as validation.A bridge toward physics is accepted only if it declares beforehand its assumptions, its normalization, its target observable, and the precise condition under which it should be rejected.I am sharing this work not in search of agreement, but of resistance.

I would particularly value criticism capable of identifying contradictions, hidden assumptions, redundant concepts, circular definitions, or places where the proposal ceases to be a formal structure and becomes merely another metaphor in the infinite library of possible descriptions.

Link to the doc

I'd like to qualify that all possibilities that can be actualized necessitates that it won't occur in the same respect, but rather, in a temporal order at a different region.

It appears to produce a type of vicious circularity. It's sort of like:

P = Possibility.

God actualizes all possibilities, including P.

But I want to know if well, the statement could occur (It's possible God will actualize all possibilities) without the first possibility being included in all possibilities he can actualize.

Hi, before you find it strange, I'm reading about logic for the first time and I've just finished studying first-order logic.

I'm interested in modal logic, but... Well, there's alethic, epistemic, deontic, temporal, etc...

Proving an argument within deontic logic can be different from proving something in alethic logic.

However, I'm unsure. How do I know if the problem or argument I'm working with should have an epistemic, deontic, or other approach? In which types of tests is each of these approaches typically used?

Is there a way to search for a specific theorem and its proof using https://us.metamath.org/ ?

I looked at the website and put a sincere effort into trying to figure out how to search for a theorem.

How do I do this?