* What specific mechanism(s), consistent with fundamental principles, allow for the robust emergence and persistence of stable, localized structures (particle analogues) from an underlying dynamic substrate (whether informational field or other)? * **Formalism Gap:** What formal language (mathematical, computational, logical) can effectively and rigorously capture the dynamics of process-based, relational, potentially information-centric ontologies without importing the limitations of standard physics formalisms? * **Operational Definitions:** How can abstract principles like stability, alignment, exploration, and context-dependence be given precise, operational definitions sufficient for unambiguous formal implementation? * **Potentiality Representation:** How can the concept of "potentiality" be formally represented in a way that supports both quantum-like superposition/probability and definite actualization upon interaction? * **Numerical Artifacts vs. Emergence:** How can computational simulations reliably distinguish genuine emergent phenomena (esp. quantization) from artifacts of finite precision and discretization? * **Gravity's Fundamental Role:** Is gravity primarily a consequence of matter/energy patterns, or is it intrinsically linked to the principles governing pattern formation and persistence itself? * **Nature of Time/Sequence:** How does the subjective experience of time flow and the objective physical "time" parameter of standard theories emerge from the fundamental "Sequence" of events? * **The "Hard Problem" Boundary:** To what extent can a principle-based or information-based framework explain the structural and functional correlates of consciousness, and where does it hit the boundary of explaining subjective qualia? * **Justification of Principles/Axioms:** What is the ultimate justification for selecting a specific set of foundational principles, and are they truly minimal and sufficient?