Current draft of my Field Ontology

[Cred]

Since the last draft of my ontological cosmology, my theory has become A LOT more streamlined. It seems to have moved from the domain of analytical idealism to the domain of field ontology.

Of course, I have been inspired by physics, however, I am using every concept borrowed from physics as a metaphysical principle that applies to all of reality, including physics on every level of granularity because of the self-similar nature of reality. 

What is Reality?

Field is the absolute. Reality is space.

A space is a duality with an outer boundary, and an inner boundary that separates the dualities. The space has the field quality.

The outer boundary of the space is necessary to prevent the disintegration of the space and the inner boundary is necessary to prevent the collapse of the space.

The outer boundary allows the field of the space to resonate. Resonance is what happens, when the frequency of the wave match the outer boundary, such that it becomes a standing wave and therefore allows for existence, which is an instance of being which is field.

Any wave with the same frequency with an inverted phase in the same space will cause destructive interference and therefore the complete negation of the standing wave, which is non-existence.

A space with no wave is empty.

The qualities of field

Field has three qualities: Unity, duality and wave, which itself has four qualities: Frequency, Spectrum, Amplitude and Phase.

Unity is the devine desire for the collapse of duality, which is space, into singularity.

Duality is the gift from god that establishes space and allows for existence.

Frequency is sequentiality and causes the manifestation of logic and the object.

Spectrum is Simultaneity and causes the manifestation of meaning and the symbol.

Amplitude is feeling and causes the manifestation of phenomenon and the subject.

Conclusion

Of course, this is just another draft. The theory will change again, when I try to integrate more concepts into it, especially from physics, about which I need to learn a lot more. It might not seem like it, but as it stands, it explains A LOT. 

There are still open questions and inconsistencies like:

• What exactly is phase?
• How exactly does resonance and dissonance happen?
• What is a mind, and how does the distribution of the three attributes (neurodivergence-neurotypicalness distribution) arise?
  • Idea: Mind is a topology (resonance body) that creates a space with special attributes
  • The HSP topology creates a ton of feedback (wave is trapped inside for longer). It creates resonance when there is a pleasant feeling and dissonance when there is an unpleasant feeling.
  • The Autism topology creates resonance when a wave is coherent and dissonance when it is incoherent.
  • Neurotypical topology creates resonance when a wave fits its identity and dissonance when it is in conflict with its identity.
• If the field comes first, then what comes second? The wave or the space? Does the wave create the space (high frequencies create smaller spaces with a frequency of the Planck length creating singularity and lower frequencies create bigger spaces) or does the space create the wave? If it's the latter, then where does the space come from?
• Where do these forces of unity and duality come from? Do high frequencies create unity and low frequencies duality or is it the other way around or not at all what's happening?
• Is all of this in some way related to physics or just Deepak Chopra style pseudoscience?

I'm pretty confident that I'm onto something, also because:

(Fields of sense seems to be a lot more limited to my theory since it seems to assume spectrum, which is meaning, is the most fundamental, which is only a part of my theory)

[PolyPeter]

This is epic work and very interesting. Congrats.

 

 

The triadic structure of wave qualities is elegant, mapping them to logic/meaning/feeling respectively gives the framework real descriptive and explanatory power.

The resonance mechanism as the condition for existence, rather than just asserting things exist, is a meaningful step toward grounding ontology in process rather than substance.

 

Where I think there is a gap

The core claim is Field is the absolute. But the framework then immediately assigns qualities to Field: Unity, Duality, and the capacity for Wave.

This means Field isn't truly absolute, it's a structured first principle.

A genuine absolute can't have internal structure, because structure requires something that determines why those structures and not others.

You've smuggled in a second-order question: what determines the specific qualities of Field?

This shows up concretely in Unity is the divine desire for collapse.

Desire is a relational, intentional property, it points toward something.

Embedding desire in the absolute means your absolute already contains directionality before anything exists to have direction.

That's not a minor detail, it's an assumption with no justification.

 

The diagnostic criterion

When evaluating any foundational ontology, the question is:

does the proposed absolute genuinely require nothing prior to it, or does explaining it require invoking concepts that are themselves unexplained?

Right now, Field requires Unity and Duality to be what it is, but neither Unity nor Duality are derived, they're just asserted.

 

There is something more solid than any of these concepts: direct experience.

The best an ontology can do is point toward it, like a finger pointing at the moon.

The map is not the territory, and no matter how elegant the map, the territory was always there first.

An honest ontology knows this about itself, its ultimate validation isn't internal consistency or explanatory power, it's whether it successfully directs you toward something you can verify firsthand. If it never points beyond itself, it's just symbols talking to symbols.

 

The physics question

The distinction isn't about using physics concepts, it's about whether the framework makes incorrect predictions you'd have to abandon if falsified.

Metaphysics borrowed from physics can be legitimate, but it needs to be honest that it's operating in the philosophical domain, not extending physics itself.

The open questions you listed are good ones. The topology of mind direction is the most promising thread, it's specific enough to potentially generate testable claims.