PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 24, 20268 citationsOpen Access

Evoluism and the Structural Collapse of Strong Universal Theories

View Full Paper
MEM. Evoluit

Key Points

  • The article critiques the legitimacy of strong universal theories that claim to describe Reality with a single framework.
  • Theoretical analysis of strong universal theories and their structural implications.
  • Development of a dilemma concerning the identification of Reality and its applicability within regimes.
  • Comparison of weak unification versus strong theoretical totalisation.
  • Strong universal theories fail to provide a coherent structure due to their inherent structural defects.
  • Coupling of ontological categories with local regimes leads to a collapse of valid distinctions.
  • The paper situates these findings within an Evoluist framework emphasizing the limits of ontology.

Abstract

This article argues that any strong universal theory is structurally defective. A strong universal theory, as understood here, is any theoretical framework that claims universal validity for a single descriptive structure, set of distinctions, or regime of articulation, and thereby aspires to articulate Reality as such. From the standpoint of Evoluism, this ambition is illegitimate. A world is a local regime of manifestness in which differences are retained, stabilised, and made available for coordination, description, and explanation. Reality, by contrast, is not an entity, structure, or process within such a regime, but the limit-condition of the applicability of ontological categories. The article develops a structural dilemma: any strong universal theory must either identify Reality with one regime of manifestness or extend its distinctions beyond the conditions that sustain their validity. In both cases, the constitutive asymmetry between condition, regime, and element collapses. The paper distinguishes weak unification from strong theoretical totalisation and argues that explanatory scope does not license universal ontological closure. It situates this conclusion within the broader Evoluist framework concerning the limits of ontology, the domain dependence of distinctions, and the structural impossibility of invariant recovery under collapsing transitions.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

M. Evoluit (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69eb0a2e553a5433e34b4609https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19699196
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper