This conceptual framework proposes a new ontological foundation for physics, suggesting how space, time, and matter emerge through interaction.
The present work puts forward a conceptual framework for fundamental physics, built upon minimal logical inferences from self-evident facts. The starting point of the reasoning is simple: for two entities to exist as two, a separator is required; the separator can be neither the same stuff the entities themselves are made of, nor absolute nothingness. From this follows the existence of two qualitatively distinct first principles.A further unfolding of this logic, without invoking any complex mathematical apparatus or introducing additional entities, leads to a coherent picture in which space, time, and matter are not postulated as given, but lawfully emerge from a primary interaction. Time turns out to be not a background but a sequence of events; space — not an arena but a measure of separatedness; matter — not an independent substance but a stable dynamic equilibrium.The proposed approach does not contradict known physical discoveries and does not reject verified theories. On the contrary, it offers them a missing ontological foundation, allowing the existing mathematical formalism to be viewed from a new angle. Within this picture, many fundamental paradoxes and contradictions of modern physics receive a natural heuristic explanation: the cosmological constant problem, the nature of quantum entanglement, the irreversibility of time, the origin of quantum discreteness, the meaning of virtual particles, as well as the nature of fundamental constants.The model does not claim mathematical completeness and is an invitation to collaboration for theoretical physicists and mathematicians. It offers a clear kinematics of the fundamental level — a description of what exactly occurs at the pre-spatial level of reality — thereby setting a direction for a formalization capable of uniting existing approaches to quantum gravity under a single ontological roof. The original Russian version of this work is available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20626770
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mikhail Danilovskiy (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: