Theoretical framework demonstrates a unified projection mechanism across physical, biological, and social domains, highlighting information as a scale-dependent descriptive attribute.
This article presents a unified ontological framework connecting physics, biology, and social sciences through the projection mechanism of EFOS (Entity That Forming Objects and Subjects) and the parameter G — the choice of the level of description. It is shown that physics (black holes, quantum objects), biology (the living, subjects, evolution), and social sciences (partnership, culture, meanings) are not three different "realities" but one reality seen through three different levels of description. The key thesis is that information is not a substance but an attribute of projection that arises with the choice of G. In physics, information manifests as configuration; in biology — as a difference that makes a difference (Bateson); in social sciences — as knowledge, meaning, and communication. The transition between levels is a change of G, not a change of ontology. Biology is identified as a critical bridging link: it provides the transition from "information as configuration" (physics) to "information as knowledge and meaning" (social). The living is a projection where information becomes an active agent — a cause affecting the future of the system. The unified projection mechanism (P(G) as a semigroup) explains irreversibility in physics, evolution in biology, and memory in social systems. The Index of Coherence of Projection (ICP) provides a quantitative measure linking astrophysical observations with ontological classification. The model offers empirically testable markers (I_PA, K_G, ICP, I_ARD, η_info) that make it falsifiable and distinguishable from competing approaches. The article concludes with a call for interdisciplinary dialogue through the unified language of G: use G as a tool for transitioning between levels and creating a common language of science.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alexander Yourievitch Kotelnikov (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: