This paper presents a set of structural impossibility constraints articulated by the Three Prohibitions (Ω-Law) governing discourse about existence-as-totality and meaning. Its aim is not to introduce a new metaphysical theory, semantic framework, or empirical hypothesis, but to adjudicate the admissibility of certain question-forms that have persistently appeared across philosophy, cosmology, and theories of meaning. The Three Prohibitions are treated here as structural constraints, not as propositions requiring derivation or defense. Under these constraints, the paper demonstrates that a wide range of familiar claims—such as external causes of the universe, first causes of existence-as-a-whole, ultimate explanatory hierarchies, and final interpretations of totality—are not merely unresolved or speculative, but structurally inadmissible. By distinguishing between questions that are difficult to answer and questions that are not permitted by the structure of coherence itself, this paper reframes longstanding debates as cases of category error rather than epistemic limitation. The results apply across ontological, cosmological, epistemic, and semantic domains, and remain invariant under changes of empirical model or theoretical vocabulary. This work operates exclusively at the level of structural adjudication. It does not present the full metalogical derivation of the Ω-Law, nor does it rely on empirical evidence or literature-based argumentation. Its contribution lies in clarifying which forms of inquiry remain admissible once the conditions of coherence are made explicit.
Wangius (Thu,) studied this question.