This article presents a critical–propositional analysis of Zhang Xuan’s The λ-Centric Cosmological Model — A Metaphysical Framework for Founding Physics (2026), published on Zenodo under DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19724570. The study examines the λ-centric model in confrontation with the Theory of Objectivity (TO), especially its modal axioms, phenomenic elements, Inductive Effects, cosmogonic theorem, and cosmological Eras. Zhang Xuan’s proposal introduces a metaphysical distinction between the Wider Universe and the Visible Universe, the concept of Primordial Entities, the Finite Maximum Number Ω, and the λ factor as a proposed coefficient for interpreting kinetic manifestation within a cosmological background. The analysis identifies important points of compatibility between the λ-centric model and the Theory of Objectivity, particularly regarding the need for a pre-physical metaphysical foundation, the emergence of distinction from identity, the role of boundary in the generation of space, and the informational dimension of cosmic becoming. At the same time, it highlights critical tensions concerning the status of Primordial Entities, the interpretation of Ω, the relation between singularity and mathematical Nothingness, and the physical limits of the proposed kinetic-energy formula. The article proposes that the λ factor should be read primarily as a phenomenic coefficient of local manifestation rather than as an immediate replacement for relativistic kinetic energy. In this reading, λ becomes a symbolic index of the redistribution between motion, cosmological background, radiation, information, and objective emergence. This analytical text received analytical support from ChatGPT. Keywords: Theory of Objectivity; λ-Centric Cosmological Model; Zhang Xuan; Primordial Entities; Finite Maximum Number Ω; cosmology; metaphysics of physics; modal ontology; phenomenic elements; Inductive Effects; cosmic origin; singularity; mathematical Nothingness; kinetic manifestation; information; radiation; Zenodo.
Cabannas et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: