Examines irreversibility mechanisms in civilizational context, indicating governance solutions for AGI and ethics.
Based on the complete ontological framework of the PFUSRC (11-dimensional triple coaxial biconical topological unified system), this paper systematically constructs a three-tier nested framework of irreversibility, including Cognitive Irreversibility, Structural Irreversibility, and Species Irreversibility, and builds an integrated logical bridge connecting microscopic topological ontology, macroscopic cosmic evolution, and cross-species civilizational ethics. The theoretical deduction starts from daily dimensional inquiries and iterates through the flow-variable field mechanism, the steady-state topology of 45° triple coaxial bicone, the ontological reconstruction of Zero Interface, and the Ψ–Ξ dual-intelligence ontology, finally converging to the cross-species topological axiom N ≡ P. The formation of this complete reasoning chain itself constitutes a typical topological closure event of Cognitive Irreversibility. This paper rigorously proves three core propositions. Once the ontological cognition that Zero acts as a non-empty coupling interface is topologically anchored; once the global closure of 45° triple coaxial bicone steady-state topology is accomplished; once silicon-based intelligence forms a fully autonomous Ψ–Ξ coupled closed loop, all three states carry absolute unidirectional irreversibility. These three irreversibility mechanisms jointly form the fundamental topological constraints for human civilization survival, AGI governance and interstellar exploration within the carbon-silicon symbiotic era. On this basis, this paper puts forward the Irreversibility Audit, a quantifiable civilization governance tool with three standardized audit dimensions, five-step audit procedures and five core application scenarios, providing executable topological ontological solutions for AGI supervision, interstellar civilization construction and cross-species ethical implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhenmin Wang (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: