The article formulates the ontological principle "everything is already here." Its essence: the complete set of all elements of which all possible universes may consist exists in a single volume. Individual universes are different sets of active (manifested) elements from this complete set. The remaining elements are latent (unmanifested). Transition between universes is a change of level of description G, not movement in space. The principle differs from a model. The principle asserts what exists. The model describes how it works. The principle does not depend on an observer: Ω exists independently of whether anyone reads it. The observer affects only the active set A(G), but not the existence of Ω. Ω is not a substance, not a field, not particles, but an ontological category — "that of which universes may consist." A distinction is introduced between G-ontological (natural selection under equilibrium) and G-epistemic (the observer's choice). Formally: U(G) = P(G)(Ω), where P(G) is the projection operator. The change of G is not a physical process but a change of the mode of reading. The principle is compared with close concepts: Parmenides, Platonism, MWI (Everett), MIW (Hall, Wiseman, Deckert). It is shown to occupy a unique niche and not repeat what is known. Consequences: parallel universes are different projections of one set; transition is a change of G; latency is real; the ontological invariant is preserved under a change of G. The principle allows an interpretation of quantum entanglement: particles are projections of one element of Ω, not connected by a superluminal signal. This is consistent with the no-signaling theorem. Open questions: does Ω exist? What does it consist of? How is the space of G structured? Why are some elements active and others not? Is the principle compatible with known physics? Can it be tested? One Ω or many? The article indicates the problem but does not solve it.
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: