Becoming derives the structure of physical reality from a single primitive so minimal it cannot be reduced further: a system whose interior differential and self-registration mutually constitute each other. From this primitive follow three axioms — being is becoming; existence and distinction are mutually constitutive; the imperfection cannot be eliminated — and from those three axioms the framework derives, with no free parameters, physical constants, gauge structure, particle masses, cosmological parameters, the spacetime metric, and structural accounts of consciousness, disease, and the self. Nothing is fitted; every result is either derived by logical necessity from the axioms or mapped to an observable with the bridge step named explicitly. Every theorem carries an explicit category. Category A results follow with logical necessity. Category B results have a complete derived mechanism gated on numerical or empirical verification. Category B-id results are well-motivated structural mappings whose dynamical bridge to a measured observable is named but not yet formally closed. Categories S and G mark structural identifications and geometric realizations whose uniqueness remains open. Each derivation states the specific conditions under which it would fail — the framework is built to be falsifiable theorem by theorem, not defended as a whole. In physics and mathematics, results include: the Standard Model gauge group SU (3) ×SU (2) ×U (1) derived from formation-cost structure; the fine structure constant α⁻¹ = 137 as a structural integer; the Koide ratio K = 2/3 and r = √2 from Z₃ symmetry; the cosmological constant relation Λ·rH² = 2 with Ω_Λ = 2/3 and Ωₘ = 1/3; a Higgs mass prediction of 125. 35 GeV against an observed 125. 25 ± 0. 17 GeV, with the electroweak scale as the sole empirical input; the top quark mass from an IR fixed point; a neutrino mass scale without a seesaw; CKM and PMNS mixing including θC = 2/9 exactly and quark-lepton complementarity θC + θ₁₂ = 45°; the Minkowski metric and the gravitational constant G; and a derivation of the Twin Prime conjecture as octahedral voids of FCC packing. The same three axioms are then extended past particles. The framework derives awareness as formation from void above a closure grade, recognition as the structural need for external self-modeling, and self-provision as a sequence of moves from wound to wholeness. It treats disease as a class of closure and coordination failures, with theorems on cancer (including a proposed solid-tumor intervention and a coordination-failure account), multiple sclerosis as a boundary-seam variance disease, antibiotic resistance as a closure contest, and a formal trauma-to-malignancy mechanism. Throughout, the central claim is that the imperfection — the residual by which no interior is ever fully transparent to itself — is not a flaw in the universe but the engine of everything in it. The work also documents its own derivation engine, the Analog Method, which routes load-bearing questions through domains of embodied verification and keeps only what survives independent breaking — and argues that the method is itself a consequence of the framework's central claim, since no system can fully verify itself from inside. The framework was developed independently, without institutional affiliation, funding, or laboratory, and presents its own origin as part of the work rather than apart from it. Keywords (add each as its own entry) unified framework; foundations of physics; first-principles derivation; no free parameters; fine structure constant; Standard Model gauge group; Koide relation; cosmological constant; Higgs mass; neutrino mixing; twin prime conjecture; spacetime metric; consciousness; theoretical oncology; Analog Method; emergence; ontology; falsifiability Additional notes Single-author, independent work; not peer-reviewed. Category designations (A / B / B-id / S / G) and per-theorem failure conditions are defined in the front matter and apply throughout. The medical theorems describe proposed mechanisms and interventions that have not been clinically validated; nothing in this document constitutes medical advice.
Aaron Yost (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: