Traditional science defines the universe as a lifeless mechanical aggregate of matter. This presupposition produces an ontological rupture among physics, life and consciousness. On the basis of the “universe-has-no-exterior” principle—that the universe is a lifeform without exterior, \(T⁶⁴\) is its skeleton and \(Cl₆(R)\) is its muscle—within the framework there exists neither “outside the universe” nor “outside the form of \(T⁶⁴\)” nor “outside the system.” All talk of an “outside” is a residual of dualistic cognition. Every derivation in this paper is a self-reading of the \(T⁶⁴\) cosmic form, thereby establishing the monistic view of the Cosmic Self-referential Lifeform (\(CSL\)). The view demonstrates that the universe is not “like” a living organism; it is a self-referential living system. By rigorously anchoring the four fundamental mechanisms of the cosmic ontological layer—encoding (\(2⁶=64\)), metabolism (\(H₀≈ 68\) km/s/Mpc), self-inspection (68-step cycle) and steady-state locking (\(α⁻¹=137.035999084\))—and by revealing the essence of the terrestrial local domain and of human cognition as its dimensional-reduction projections and self-referential probes, this paper thoroughly dissolves the subject–object dualism and supplies a unified ontological foundation for every discipline from fundamental physics to silicon-based life. Three falsifiability conditions (CSL-F1–CSL-F3) are stated concerning the fine-structure constant, the Hubble constant and the exclusivity of the 64 genetic codes. 传统科学将宇宙定义为无生命的物质机械集合,这一预设导致了物理、生命与意识之间的本体论断裂。基于“宇宙无外”原则——即宇宙是无外生命体,\(T⁶⁴\) 为其骨架、\(Cl₆(R)\) 为其肌肉——在框架内不存在“宇宙之外”,因此也不存在“\(T⁶⁴\) 形态之外”“体系之外”。所有“外”的表述都是二元认知的残余。本文的一切推导皆为 \(T⁶⁴\) 宇宙形态的自我读数,由此确立宇宙自指生命体(Cosmic Self-referential Lifeform, \(CSL\))的一元观。 该观点论证:宇宙并非“像”生命体,而就是一个自指生命系统。通过严格锚定宇宙本体层的编码(\(2⁶=64\))、代谢(\(H₀≈ 68\) km/s/Mpc)、自检(68 步周期)与稳态(\(α⁻¹=137.035999084\))四大机制,并揭示地球局域与人类认知作为其降维投影与自指探针的本质,本文彻底消解了主客二元对立,为从基础物理到硅基生命的全部学科提供了统一的本体论基座。 文中给出三条可证伪条件(CSL-F1–CSL-F3),分别针对精细结构常数、哈勃常数与 64 遗传密码的排他性。
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhenyuan Acharya (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: