Exploring Analogous Foundational Principles and Generative Ontologies

**Exploring Analogous Foundational Principles and Generative Ontologies: A Comparative Analysis of Autaxys** *[Rowan Brad Quni](mailto:[email protected]), [QNFO](http://QNFO.org)* **Abstract** This paper addresses the persistent challenge in comprehensively understanding reality from first principles, highlighting limitations in current ontological frameworks. It introduces “autaxys,” a novel foundational principle of intrinsic self-ordering and self-generating patterned existence. Autaxys posits that reality operates via an inherent “generative engine,” comprising specific operational dynamics (Relational Processing, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Feedback Dynamics, Resonance, Critical State Transitions) and meta-logical principles (e.g., Intrinsic Coherence, Interactive Complexity Maximization). A comparative analysis is conducted, contrasting autaxys with analogous concepts in process ontologies, complex adaptive systems, emergent physical laws, relational quantum mechanics, and information-based ontologies. While existing theories address facets of self-organization and emergence, autaxys distinguishes itself through its explicit, integrated generative engine, offering a unified account for the ultimate origin of order, physical laws, and patterned reality without recourse to external agents or pre-imposed rules. The framework is positioned as a novel, potentially more comprehensive basis for foundational inquiry, highlighting its unique contributions and identifying fertile ground for future interdisciplinary dialogue. **1. Introduction** **1.1. The Imperative for New Foundational Principles** The enduring quest to comprehend the fundamental nature of reality has spurred remarkable advancements across scientific and philosophical disciplines. Despite these achievements, a persistent challenge remains in articulating a comprehensive understanding of the cosmos from first principles. Prevailing ontological frameworks often encounter significant limitations when confronted with the deepest questions of existence, particularly concerning the ultimate origin of order, the intrinsic nature of physical laws, and the genesis of complex, patterned reality. This paper explores the necessity for new foundational thinking to bridge these explanatory gaps. **1.2. Limitations of Current Ontological Frameworks** Prevailing ontological frameworks, often rooted in substance-based metaphysics or naive realism, struggle to adequately address the ultimate origin of order, the intrinsic nature of physical laws, and the genesis of complex, patterned reality. For instance, conventional physics frequently treats fundamental particles and their governing laws as axiomatic starting points. While these axioms enable extraordinary precision in describing interactions, they offer limited insight into the ultimate provenance of these particles or the underlying reasons for their specific characteristics. This adherence to axiomatic starting points creates a foundational explanatory gap: if fundamental particles and laws are simply given, their existence and particular properties remain unexplained, appearing as brute facts, potentially leading to infinite regress or appeals to external, unexplained forces. Consequently, current paradigms, while descriptively powerful, often fall short explanatorily when probing the deepest “why” questions of existence. Furthermore, existing terminology, such as “information” or “logos,” while rich in connotation, often proves insufficient to precisely denote a naturalistic, immanent, and intrinsically self-generating principle capable of giving rise to observed patterned reality. This terminological and conceptual void underscores the urgent need for new foundational thinking that can bridge this explanatory chasm. **1.3. The Need for a Generative, Pattern-Based Ontology** The identified limitations of current paradigms strongly suggest the imperative to explore alternative ontological foundations. A promising avenue involves a fundamental shift from a view of reality constituted by static “things” to one grounded in dynamic processes and emergent patterns. Such an ontology would seek to explain how complexity, structure, and even perceived physical “laws” arise intrinsically from a fundamental generative source, rather than being imposed externally or existing as unexplained brute facts. This approach prioritizes understanding the genesis of phenomena, aiming for a more coherent and unified account of a universe that appears inherently ordered and capable of evolving immense complexity. This reorientation of causal understanding emphasizes dynamic processes giving rise to patterns, which then manifest as entities with observable properties, implying causality is inherent within the process itself. Foundational inquiry thus moves from identifying fundamental “stuff” to identifying fundamental “activity” or “becoming,” suggesting that the universe’s “laws” are emergent regularities of its intrinsic, self-unfolding activity. **1.4. Introducing Autaxys and Autology as a Response** In response to this profound need for a new foundational principle, the concept of autaxys is introduced (Quni, 2025a, 2025b). Derived from Greek *auto* (self) and *taxis* (order/arrangement), autaxys signifies a principle of intrinsic self-ordering, self-arranging, and self-generating patterned existence. It is posited as the inherent dynamic process by which all discernible structures and phenomena emerge without recourse to external agents or pre-imposed rules. The deliberate coining of “autaxys” aims to avoid ambiguities associated with repurposing terms like “information” or “logos,” thereby defining a concept that is explicitly naturalistic, immanent, and emphasizes its systemic, dynamic nature. Consequently, autology is defined as the interdisciplinary field dedicated to the systematic study of autaxys, its manifestations, and its implications. This framework proposes a “new way of seeing” reality, emphasizing generative principles and the primacy of pattern. The subsequent sections will further elucidate the autaxic framework, detailing its core principles and generative engine. This will be followed by a comparative analysis with analogous foundational concepts, a discussion of autaxys’ unique contributions and implications, and concluding remarks. **2. The Autaxys Framework** **2.1. Autaxys Defined: The Principle of Intrinsic Self-Generation and Patterned Order** **2.1.1. Etymology and Rationale for the Term “Autaxys”** The introduction of a new foundational principle necessitates careful terminological consideration. The term “autaxys” is a neologism constructed to encapsulate the core attributes of the proposed principle, deriving from Greek roots: *auto-* (αὐτός - autos), signifying “self,” “spontaneous,” or “by oneself,” emphasizing inherent self-causation and intrinsic dynamics; and *taxis* (τάξις - taxis), meaning “arrangement,” “order,” or “system,” conveying a structured, rule-governed, and systemic quality. The inclusion of ‘y’ instead of ‘i’ in “autaxys” signifies its conceptualization as an encompassing system of self-generating patterns and processes, not merely a singular, abstract quality of order—an act of linguistic engineering to guide interpretation towards immanence, dynamism, and systemic nature. “Autaxys” thus denotes a fundamental principle of self-ordering, self-arranging, and the intrinsic capacity of a system to generate its own structure and dynamics, filling a conceptual void for a naturalistic, immanent, self-generating principle responsible for all order and pattern (Quni, 2025b). **2.1.2. Formal Definition of Autaxys** Building upon its etymological roots and the identified need for a principle transcending substance-based ontologies, autaxys is formally defined as: *“The fundamental principle of reality conceived as a self-ordering, self-arranging, and self-generating system. It is the inherent dynamic process by which patterns emerge, persist, and interact, giving rise to all discernible structures and phenomena. These phenomena include what is perceived by observing systems as information, as well as the regularities interpreted as physical laws, and the complex, stable patterns identified as matter, energy, space, and time. A core tenet is that autaxys operates without recourse to an external organizing agent or pre-imposed set of rules; the principles of its ordering and generation are intrinsic to its nature.”* (Quni, 2025a) This definition positions autaxys not as a static substance or a fixed entity, but as the foundational activity or dynamic potentiality from which all structured existence arises—an ontological shift from static being to dynamic becoming. It is both the ultimate source of order and the ongoing process of that order manifesting and evolving. The emphasis on “system” highlights its interconnected and rule-governed nature, while “self-generating” points to its capacity to bring forth novelty and complexity from its own internal dynamics. The patterns generated by autaxys are its primary mode of expression and the basis for all knowable reality. **2.1.3. Key Characteristics of Autaxys** To further elucidate the concept, several key characteristics define autaxys’ operational nature and ontological status: - **Ontological Primacy:** Autaxys is posited as possessing ontological primacy, serving as the ultimate ground of being (understood in a naturalistic, immanent sense) from which all other aspects of reality—including matter, energy, spacetime, information, and physical laws—emerge as patterned manifestations. This addresses the limitations of ontologies that take these emergent phenomena as fundamental or irreducible. - **Dynamic and Processual Nature:** Autaxys is an ongoing process of self-unfolding, pattern generation, and transformation, not a static entity. Reality, from this perspective, is in a constant state of becoming, a continuous flux of emergent patterns. - **Intrinsic Rationality and “Meta-Logic”:** While self-generating, autaxys is not arbitrary or chaotic. It operates according to intrinsic principles of coherence and order, described as a “meta-logic” that is more fundamental than human-derived logical systems. This inherent rationality provides the basis for the universe’s lawfulness and intelligibility. This “meta-logic” is a critical characteristic, providing a meta-level explanation for the “origin of physical laws”. If laws are not externally imposed, they must arise from the intrinsic nature of reality itself. This “meta-logic” acts as the inherent “grammar” that ensures coherence and consistency, providing the very basis for the universe’s intelligibility. This re-frames the philosophical discussion from “why are the laws like this?” to “how does the intrinsic nature of reality necessitate these laws?”, grounding the very possibility of scientific inquiry in the inherent orderliness of autaxys. - **Pattern-Generating Capacity:** Its primary manifestation is as a pattern-generating principle. It creates the discernible regularities, structures, and forms observed at all scales of existence. - **Foundation for Information (Derivative Sense):** Autaxys serves as the ontological foundation for information. Information, in this context, arises when autaxys-generated patterns are registered, differentiated, or interact within a system. Information is thus a derivative aspect of autaxys, characterizing its patterned expressions rather than being the primary substance of reality. This explicitly positions autaxys against paninformationalism, where information is seen as the fundamental ‘stuff everything is made of’. Instead, autaxys proposes that the capacity to generate patterns is primary, and information is what is extracted or perceived from these patterns. This aligns with Bateson’s notion of “a difference that makes a difference” (Bateson, 1972) as a description of information emerging from patterns, rather than being the fundamental ground itself. This perspective implies that while information is crucial for describing reality, it is not the ultimate ontological primitive; the ‘code’ or ‘rules’ of the universe are not pre-existing information but rather the inherent generative principles of autaxys. - **Self-Articulation/Self-Description:** Autaxys exhibits self-articulation or self-description, meaning the dynamic unfolding of its patterns is its expression. The structure and evolution of reality are the articulation of autaxys, emphasizing its immanence and completeness as both source and expression. - **Acausal Origin (No External Agent):** A defining feature of autaxys is the acausal origin of its fundamental ordering principles. These principles are intrinsic to its nature and are not imposed by any external agent or pre-existing set of laws. Autaxys is self-sufficient in its capacity to generate order. This stands in direct contrast to concepts of ‘ontological constraints’ that are extrinsic to a system’s dynamics, influencing it without being influenced themselves. - **Conceptual Aspiration for Transcending Gödelian Limits:** While any human formal description or model of autaxys will inevitably be subject to Gödelian incompleteness, autaxys itself, as the ultimate territory-generator, is conceived as operationally complete and consistent in its generative capacity. This reflects an aspiration for the principle to provide a framework that, while describable, is not ultimately constrained by the limits of formal descriptive systems, suggesting a completeness beyond formal descriptive systems. These characteristics collectively define autaxys as a unique ontological primitive—the active, self-organizing, pattern-generating foundation of all reality. **2.2. The Generative Engine of Autaxys: Intrinsic Meta-Logic and Operational Dynamics** To comprehend how autaxys gives rise to the structured and evolving universe, the conceptual metaphor of a “generative engine” is employed. **2.2.1. The “Generative Engine”: Conceptual Metaphor and Function** It is crucial to emphasize that this “engine” is not a literal machine with distinct parts, nor an entity separate from or acting upon autaxys. Rather, the generative engine *is* the dynamic, processual nature of autaxys itself—a coherent, interdependent set of fundamental processes (termed operational dynamics) and inherent regulative principles (termed meta-logic) that collectively describe the intrinsic modus operandi of autaxys—the articulation of how autaxys is and does. The singular, overarching function of this generative engine is to spontaneously and continuously generate all discernible order, complexity, and patterned phenomena from an initially undifferentiated state of pure potentiality. This occurs without recourse to external input, pre-existing blueprints, or imposed laws; the rules and impetus for creation are immanent within autaxys. The interplay between dynamics and meta-logic is indivisible: the meta-logic serves as the inherent “grammar” shaping how the dynamics operate, while the dynamics are the “verbs” through which the meta-logic expresses itself, avoiding the separation of “laws” from the “stuff” they govern. Instead, the very way autaxys operates (dynamics) is constrained and guided by its inherent nature (meta-logic). This implies that the universe’s “rules” are not external impositions but internal expressions of its self-generative capacity, offering a powerful response to the problem of “brute facts” regarding physical laws. **2.2.2. Core Operational Dynamics** The operational dynamics are the fundamental ways autaxys acts and interacts with itself to produce patterned reality. These represent the core processes identified by autology as essential for generation, operating at a level more fundamental than conventional physical laws, giving rise to proto-physical and ultimately physical phenomena. Their intrinsic nature provides the conceptual basis for the mathematical structures observed in foundational theories like quantum field theory and general relativity. **2.2.2.1. Dynamic I: Relational Processing—The Primordial Act of Differentiation and Connection** At the heart of autaxys’ operation is relational processing: the continuous creation, propagation, interaction, and transformation of distinctions and relations. Autaxys does not begin with “things” that then relate; rather, autaxys *processes relationships*, and persistent “things” (process-patterns) emerge as stabilized configurations of these relational dynamics. This dynamic forms the basis for all interaction, grounds the autaxic concept of information (as discernible patterns of relational distinctions), and is foundational to the emergence of spacetime as a relational order. This concept aligns with frameworks like Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) (Rovelli, 1996) and ontic structural realism (Ladyman, 2024). By presenting relational processing as primordial, autaxys implies reality is fundamentally a network of interactions, not a collection of independent entities, providing a unified framework for understanding the emergence of spacetime and the nature of quantum phenomena, where properties are context-dependent and defined by relations. **2.2.2.2. Dynamic II: Symmetry Realization and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (SSB)—The Genesis of Form and Specificity** Primordial autaxys is characterized by maximal symmetry (undifferentiated potentiality). As patterns emerge, they may exhibit realized symmetries, leading to conservation laws. Spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) is a primary autaxic generative mechanism, describing the inherent instability of perfect symmetry within a dynamic system like autaxys. Driven by intrinsic dynamism, autaxys transitions from states of higher symmetry to those of lower symmetry, spontaneously creating specific forms, distinctions, and structures. SSB is posited as the origin of diverse particle-patterns and the differentiation of fundamental forces, representing autaxys “choosing” paths of actualization. This dynamic parallels the concept of SSB in physics (Brading & Castellani, 2016), where observed states may not fully reflect underlying symmetries, and is linked to phase transitions and the origin of mass, suggesting the universe’s diversity arises from inherent instabilities in a primordial symmetric state. This mechanism provides a naturalistic explanation for the “choice” of actualization paths, suggesting that the universe’s complexity and differentiation are a natural consequence of its intrinsic dynamics. **2.2.2.3. Dynamic III: Feedback Dynamics (Amplification and Damping)—The Sculptor of Stability and Complexity** Feedback dynamics are intrinsic processes where a pattern’s current state influences its own subsequent evolution or that of interconnected patterns. Positive feedback involves selective amplification and stabilization of nascent, coherent patterns, crucial for the emergence of new, stable orders. Negative feedback involves regulation, damping, and constraint, suppressing unstable patterns and maintaining systemic stability. These dynamics explain the stability of fundamental particles and are fundamental to the formation and persistence of complex adaptive systems (Kauffman, 1993; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984) and the selection of physical laws as stable meta-patterns. This interplay of amplification and damping is how robust structures maintain existence, suggesting stability is an actively maintained dynamic equilibrium, a core concept also found in Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS). **2.2.2.4. Dynamic IV: Resonance and Coherence Establishment—The Basis for Harmony and Integrated Structures** Resonance within autaxys refers to the intrinsic tendency of autaxic processes or patterns to selectively amplify, synchronize with, or stably couple to others sharing compatible dynamic characteristics (e.g., analogous frequencies, structural motifs). Coherence establishment is the dynamic process by which autaxys achieves internal self-consistency and harmonious interrelation among constituent sub-patterns. These dynamics are proposed to explain the quantized nature of particle properties (as specific resonant modes), the formation of bound states (e.g., atoms, molecules), and the emergence of large-scale order and synchrony. The concepts of coherence and synchronization are also central to understanding Complex Adaptive Systems (e.g., Carmichael & Hadzikadic, 2019), where new order often emerges through system-wide synchronization, suggesting that the universe’s order is not merely stable but also internally consistent and harmoniously organized. The explanation of quantized properties as “specific resonant modes” is a profound hypothesis, suggesting a dynamic, wave-like basis for discrete properties, and providing a potential bridge between continuous underlying processes and the discrete, quantized nature of observed reality. This is analogous to the synchronized firing of neurons in the brain or the collective behavior of lasers. **2.2.2.5. Dynamic V: Critical State Transitions and Emergent Hierarchies—The Architecture of Evolving Complexity** Criticality within autaxys refers to states where the system is poised at a threshold, such that small fluctuations can trigger large-scale, qualitative transformations, leading to new levels of organization and complexity, analogous to phase transitions. These transitions, often involving Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking amplified by positive feedback and guided by resonance, are the mechanism for building nested hierarchical structures in the universe—from fundamental patterns to atoms, molecules, life, and potentially consciousness. This dynamic grounds the concept of emergence. This aligns with concepts of critical points and phase transitions in complex adaptive systems (e.g., Carmichael & Hadzikadic, 2019), where new orders of greater complexity can emerge. Critical State Transitions are thus presented as the mechanism for the universe’s observed hierarchical complexity, explaining qualitative leaps in organization as fundamental shifts in the system’s state space, often driven by intrinsic dynamics. This dynamic provides a powerful naturalistic explanation for the ‘architecture’ of the universe, from micro to macro scales, without invoking external design. **2.2.3. Intrinsic Meta-Logical Principles** The operational dynamics of autaxys do not unfold arbitrarily but are inherently guided and constrained by a set of fundamental, intrinsic meta-logical principles. These principles are not external laws imposed upon autaxys but are the deepest expressions of its inherent nature, ensuring its generative output is coherent, consistent, and capable of evolving complexity. They act as the inherent ‘grammar’ shaping how the dynamics must operate. **2.2.3.1. Meta-Logic I: Principle of Intrinsic Coherence (Universal Self-Consistency)** This principle asserts an absolute, inherent tendency within autaxys mandating the formation and persistence of patterns that are internally self-consistent and mutually compatible. Autaxys cannot generate or sustain true logical or ontological contradictions. It acts as a fundamental selection pressure, pruning incoherent patterns and ensuring that feedback and resonance converge on viable, non-paradoxical states. The logical structure of mathematics and the consistency of physical laws are seen as reflections of this fundamental demand for coherence. This ‘meta-logic’ is a critical characteristic, providing a meta-level explanation for the ‘origin of physical laws’. If laws are not externally imposed, they must arise from the intrinsic nature of reality itself. This ‘meta-logic’ acts as the inherent ‘grammar’ that ensures coherence and consistency, providing the very basis for the universe’s intelligibility. This re-frames the philosophical discussion from ‘why are the laws like this?’ to ‘how does the intrinsic nature of reality necessitate these laws?’, grounding the very possibility of scientific inquiry in the inherent orderliness of autaxys. This principle is the bedrock of autaxys’ inherent orderliness. **2.2.3.2. Meta-Logic II: Principle of Conservation of Distinguishability (Ontological Inertia of Pattern)** Once a stable distinction or pattern (a form of autaxic “information”) emerges, it possesses an ontological inertia. It tends to persist or transform only in ways that conserve its fundamental distinguishability or its “transformative potential.” This imposes constraints on all autaxic transformations, ensuring that a pattern’s identity or relational capacity is not arbitrarily lost or created without corresponding transformation elsewhere. This principle is proposed to underpin all specific conservation laws observed in physics (e.g., conservation of energy-momentum, charge-analogue), explaining their origin as a consequence of the inherent tendency of autaxic patterns to maintain their identity or transformative potential. **2.2.3.3. Meta-Logic III: Principle of Parsimony in Generative Mechanisms (Intrinsic Elegance)** Autaxys inherently operates via a minimal, yet sufficient, set of fundamental generative rules (its core dynamics and meta-logic) that can produce the entire diversity of emergent phenomena through iterative application and hierarchical nesting. This is not an external aesthetic preference (akin to Occam’s Razor as an epistemological tool) but an intrinsic feature of how autaxys achieves maximal generative output from minimal foundational complexity. It favors universal dynamics over ad-hoc rules, grounding the scientific pursuit of unifying theories and explaining the perceived elegance and efficiency of fundamental physical laws. **2.2.3.4. Meta-Logic IV: Principle of Intrinsic Determinacy and Emergent Probabilism (Autaxic Causality)** Every emergent pattern or transformation within autaxys arises as a necessary consequence of the system’s prior state and the rigorous operation of its intrinsic dynamics and meta-logic; no uncaused events occur at this fundamental operational level, ensuring a causally connected and intelligible universe. Apparent probabilism (e.g., in quantum mechanics) is an emergent feature, arising from the complex interplay of myriad underlying deterministic autaxic processes, particularly at points of critical transition or Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking from a multi-potential state, or due to inherent limitations of finite observers in grasping the totality of influences. Probability here reflects branching possibilities, with the selection of a specific branch determined by the totality of autaxic conditions, potentially reframing quantum indeterminism as an epistemic limitation rather than an ontological fundamental. **2.2.3.5. Meta-Logic V: Principle of Interactive Complexity Maximization (The Drive Towards Richness, Constrained by Stability)** Autaxys exhibits an inherent, non-teleological tendency to explore and actualize configurations of increasing interactive complexity, provided such configurations can achieve and maintain stability through its other dynamics and principles (especially coherence and parsimony). This acts as a directional influence, “pushing” the system to generate patterns that allow for richer sets of interactions and emergent functionalities, thereby increasing the universe’s overall capacity for patterned expression. This principle provides an intrinsic, non-design-based driver for the observed complexification of the universe over cosmic time, suggesting an inherently creative and exploratory nature within autaxys to actualize its potential for richer forms of existence. **2.2.4. Synergy and Operation: The Generative Engine as a Coherently Functioning Unified System** The operational dynamics and meta-logical principles of autaxys are not independent features but form a deeply interconnected, synergistic system—the generative engine itself. Each element influences and is influenced by others, ensuring autaxys functions as a coherent, self-regulating, and creatively evolving system. For instance, Intrinsic Coherence (Meta-Logic I) guides Feedback Dynamics (Dynamic III) and Resonance (Dynamic IV) towards stable patterns, while Conservation of Distinguishability (Meta-Logic II) constrains Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (Dynamic II). Parsimony (Meta-Logic III) influences the universality of emergent dynamics arising from Relational Processing (Dynamic I), and Interactive Complexity Maximization (Meta-Logic V) biases Critical State Transitions (Dynamic V) towards richer, yet stable, organizational forms. Conceptually, the engine’s operation can be traced iteratively: (1) Primordial Autaxys: Undifferentiated potentiality, maximal symmetry, latent relational processing, inherent meta-logic. (2) Initial Differentiation: Intrinsic fluctuations trigger SSB. (3) Pattern Selection & Stabilization: Feedback amplifies coherent patterns; Resonance selects compatible dynamics; Intrinsic Coherence ensures stability. (4) Growth of Complexity: Stabilized patterns become building blocks for further complexification; Interactive Complexity Maximization and Critical State Transitions drive hierarchical structuring. (5) The Emergent Universe: Ongoing operation results in the self-consistent, evolving cosmos with its array of patterns and apparent physical laws. This self-organizing and self-constraining nature of the autaxic generative engine also offers a novel perspective on the “fine-tuning” problem of cosmic parameters. Rather than requiring an external tuner or invoking anthropic arguments, autaxys, guided by its meta-logic (particularly Intrinsic Coherence, Resonance, Parsimony, and Interactive Complexity Maximization under the constraint of stability), inherently “tunes itself”. It naturally explores its generative landscape and settles into parameter regimes and structural configurations that are self-consistent, stable, and supportive of complex pattern formation. The observed “constants” of nature are thus reinterpreted as emergent, interdependent parameters of this globally harmonized, self-generated system, implying the universe’s suitability for complex phenomena is an intrinsic consequence of its own generative nature. **3. Comparative Analysis: Autaxys and Analogous Foundational Principles** This section systematically compares autaxys with existing frameworks, highlighting conceptual overlaps and distinguishing features. **3.1. Process Ontologies and Relational Realism** Process philosophy identifies processes, changes, or shifting relationships as the fundamental reality, moving beyond static substances and positing that reality is in a constant state of becoming (Whitehead, 1978; Rosen, 1991; Seibt, 2022; Bickhard, 2009; Rovelli, 1996). A central tenet is its critique of substance metaphysics, emphasizing instead self-determining activity and internal relations. Relational realism, closely related, holds that relations and structures are primary (Ladyman, 2024). - **Similarities to Autaxys:** Both autaxys and process ontologies fundamentally prioritize dynamic processes and relations over static substances. Autaxys’ “Dynamic I: Relational Processing” directly operationalizes this shared emphasis. Both frameworks explicitly critique and aim to transcend traditional substance-based views, highlighting intrinsic dynamism and self-determining activity. - **Differences from Autaxys:** While process philosophy provides a broad ontological framework, autaxys offers a more specific and integrated “generative engine” with detailed operational dynamics and meta-logical principles that explicitly describe how patterns emerge and evolve. Autaxys’ “Acausal Origin” and “Intrinsic Rationality” are more explicit in grounding the generative process entirely within reality itself, whereas some process philosophical views might still implicitly rely on certain axiomatic assumptions. This framework provides a more granular and unified account for the *genesis* of reality’s structure from first principles, detailing *how* the self-generation and ordering occur, rather than primarily asserting process as fundamental. **3.2. Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and Self-Organization** Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) are characterized by complex behaviors emerging from nonlinear interactions among components, adapting and evolving via spontaneous self-organization (Kauffman, 1993; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Chaisson, 2001). Key features include distributed control, emergent order (often at the “edge of chaos”), far-from-equilibrium dynamics, and crucial feedback loops. - **Similarities to Autaxys:** Both frameworks concern systems spontaneously generating their own order and structure. Autaxys’ operational dynamics (Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Feedback Dynamics, Critical State Transitions) directly map to mechanisms described in CAS. Both emphasize reality as composed of dynamic processes and emergent patterns, explaining order and complexity as arising intrinsically without external agents. The drive towards increasing complexity in CAS parallels Autaxys’ “Meta-Logic V: Principle of Interactive Complexity Maximization.” - **Differences from Autaxys:** CAS typically study emergent phenomena within a given physical reality, often taking physical laws as axiomatic starting points. Autaxys, however, aims to provide a more foundational account, seeking to explain the ultimate origin of physical laws themselves as emergent properties of its generative engine. Furthermore, autaxys provides explicit “meta-logical principles” (e.g., Intrinsic Coherence, Conservation of Distinguishability) that offer a deeper foundational “grammar” for self-organization than typically articulated in CAS, which often focus more on empirical observation and simulation of emergent behaviors rather than the ultimate origin of the rules governing those behaviors. **3.3. Emergent Laws of Physics and Quantum Ontology** This domain explores the idea that fundamental physical laws, and even spacetime, are not foundational but emerge from deeper quantum or relational processes. Concepts include Emergent Laws of Physics (where laws constrain possibilities), Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) (Rovelli, 1996), and the role of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (SSB) (Brading & Castellani, 2016). This domain also encompasses theories of Emergent Quantum Mechanics (EQM) and emergent spacetime, which challenge traditional views of particles as fundamental “things” (Maudlin, 2018; Walleczek, 2018; De Gosson, 2018). - **Similarities to Autaxys:** Autaxys directly aims to explain the origin of physical laws and spacetime as emergent properties, mirroring concepts in EQM and emergent spacetime theories. RQM’s emphasis on relational states and interactions is a strong parallel to Autaxys’ “Dynamic I: Relational Processing.” Both autaxys and these quantum ontology interpretations challenge the idea of fundamental particles as static “things.” SSB is a core operational dynamic in autaxys (“Dynamic II”) and a crucial mechanism in emergent physics. - **Differences from Autaxys:** While RQM offers interpretations or extensions of quantum mechanics, autaxys proposes a more fundamental generative principle from which quantum mechanics itself, along with its observed properties and interpretational frameworks, might emerge. Autaxys’ “meta-logical principles” (e.g., Intrinsic Coherence, Parsimony) provide a deeper, explicit “grammar” for the universe’s self-organization and law-generation than typically articulated within these specific physics interpretations. Autaxys also aims for a unified framework for *all* discernible phenomena (matter, energy, spacetime, laws), whereas many emergent physics theories focus on specific domains like quantum gravity or the measurement problem. **3.4. Information-Based Ontologies (Generative)** Information-based ontologies explore the role of information in reality’s fundamental nature. Some views posit information as the primary “stuff” (Shevchenko, 2021; Burgin, 2008), suggesting matter itself is composed of informational patterns. Others, aligning with Bateson’s “a difference that makes a difference” (Bateson, 1972), see information as an emergent property arising from interactions within complex systems, represented by, but not identical to, matter or energy. General theories of information (Burgin, 2008) further define its principles, such as its capacity to cause change and its relativity to a receiver. - **Similarities to Autaxys:** Both autaxys and these ontologies acknowledge information’s crucial role. Autaxys’ view that information arises when its generated patterns are registered or differentiated (“Key Characteristic: Foundation for Information (Derivative Sense)”) aligns with the emergent view of information. Bateson’s definition is conceptually compatible with autaxys’ “Dynamic I: Relational Processing” creating distinctions that can be informative. - **Differences from Autaxys:** Autaxys explicitly states that information is a *derivative* aspect of its patterned expressions, not the primary substance of reality. This is a key distinction from paninformationalist views. For autaxys, the capacity to generate patterns (the generative engine) is ontologically prior to the information that might be derived or perceived from these patterns. While some information theories focus on the genesis or principles of information itself, autaxys proposes the underlying generative mechanism for the *patterns* from which information is then abstracted. **3.5. The Shared Critique of Substance Metaphysics** A significant recurring theme across many analogous frameworks (including process philosophy, relational realism, aspects of quantum ontology, and constructivist approaches) is a shared dissatisfaction with traditional substance-based metaphysics, which posits fundamental, static “things” as ontologically primary. These critiques highlight how substance metaphysics, with its reliance on external relations and fixed entities, often limits the modeling of novelty, development, and intrinsic dynamism. Such frameworks are seen as leading to “extrinsic ontological constraints” and struggling to explain change, emergence, and the relational nature of reality. - **Similarities to Autaxys:** Autaxys explicitly positions itself as a response to these limitations (“Section 1.2: The Need for a Generative, Pattern-Based Ontology”), a concern it shares with the aforementioned fields. Like them, Autaxys advocates for a fundamental shift towards understanding reality in terms of dynamic processes, relations, or patterns, rather than static, independent substances. - **Differences from Autaxys (in this context):** While many frameworks identify the problem with substance metaphysics, autaxys offers a specific, detailed alternative ontological primitive—its “generative engine” with its integrated operational dynamics and meta-logical principles—as a comprehensive response. It aims to provide a unified generative principle for the entire cosmos that directly addresses the lacunae left by substance-based views, rather than solely critiquing them or offering domain-specific alternatives. **3.6. Comparative Matrix of Foundational Principles** The following table (Table 1) provides a structured, at-a-glance comparison of autaxys with each identified analogous framework. This matrix distills complex concepts into an easily digestible format, allowing for quick comprehension of core similarities and differences, thereby highlighting autaxys’ unique positioning. **Table 1: Comparative Matrix of Foundational Principles** | Feature | Autaxys (Quni) | Process Ontologies (e.g., Whitehead, Rosen) | Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) (e.g., Kauffman, Prigogine, Chaisson) | Emergent Laws of Physics & Quantum Ontology (e.g., RQM, EQM) | Information-Based Ontologies (Generative) (e.g., Bateson, Burgin) | Critiques of Substance Metaphysics | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | **Core Definition/Focus** | Intrinsic capacity for self-ordering, self-generating patterned existence via a generative engine. | Reality as fundamentally dynamic processes, changes, and shifting relationships. | Systems with complex behaviors emerging from nonlinear interactions, adapting via self-organization. | Physical laws, spacetime, and quantum phenomena arise from deeper, non-fundamental processes/relations. | Information as the fundamental “stuff” of reality, or as an emergent property of interactions. | Argument against static, independent “things” as primary ontological units. | | **Primary Proponents (Examples)** | Rowan Brad Quni | Alfred North Whitehead, Robert Rosen, Johanna Seibt, Mark Bickhard, Carlo Rovelli | Stuart Kauffman, Ilya Prigogine, Eric Chaisson | Carlo Rovelli (RQM), Tim Maudlin, Jan Walleczek, Maurice De Gosson | Gregory Bateson, Mark Burgin, Sergey Shevchenko | Process Philosophers, Structural Realists | | **Analogous Generative Mechanisms** | Relational Processing, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Feedback, Resonance, Critical State Transitions. | “Creativity” (Whitehead), “Impredicative Causality” (Rosen), “Self-determining activity,” “Internal relations.” | Spontaneous self-organization, Feedback loops, Critical points, Energy flow (far from equilibrium). | Quantum interlinking, Relational states, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (SSB), Entanglement. | “Differences that make a difference,” “Capacity to cause changes,” “Logos” (for fundamental view). | N/A (focus is critique, not generative mechanism). | | **Analogous Guiding Principles/Meta-Logic** | Intrinsic Coherence, Conservation of Distinguishability, Parsimony, Intrinsic Determinacy/Emergent Probabilism, Interactive Complexity Maximization. | Inherent dynamism, Self-maintenance of far-from-equilibrium systems. | Co-evolution, Distributed control, Far from equilibrium dynamics, “Edge of chaos.” | Relationality (no absolute states), Agent inaccessibility, Uncomputability, Relativity of symmetry. | Locality Principle (information relative to receiver), Transformation Principle (information causes change). | N/A (focus is critique, not guiding principles). | | **Problem Space Addressed** | Ultimate origin of order, nature of physical laws, genesis of patterned reality, fine-tuning problem. | Problem of change, dynamic nature of reality, limitations of static substance views, emergence of novelty. | Origin of complexity, self-organization, adaptation, stability in open systems, Second Law paradox. | Interpretation of quantum mechanics, origin of physical laws, spacetime emergence, fine-tuning problem, measurement problem. | Definition and ontological status of information, source of meaning, relationship between information and matter/energy. | Explaining change, dynamism, emergence, and relationality within traditional substance metaphysics. | | **Ontological Stance** | Processual, Pattern-Based, Relational, Emergent, Non-Substance. | Processual, Relational, Becoming-oriented. | Systemic, Emergent, Self-Organizing, Far-from-equilibrium. | Relational, Emergent (for laws/spacetime), Non-particle-centric (for quantum ontology). | Informational (primary or derivative), Relational. | Anti-Substance, Process-oriented (as alternative). | | **Key Similarities to Autaxys** | (Self-referential; N/A for this column’s intent) | Ontological primacy of process/relation; explicit critique of substance metaphysics; intrinsic dynamism. | Self-organization, emergence, pattern-based reality, intrinsic order, no external design, complexity maximization. | Emergence of laws/spacetime; relationality (RQM); beyond substance-based views; role of SSB. | Information as derivative property of patterns; acknowledgment of information’s role in reality. | Shared problem space (limitations of substance metaphysics); advocacy for process/relation/pattern as fundamental. | | **Key Differences from Autaxys** | (Self-referential; N/A for this column’s intent) | Broader framework, less specific “generative engine” with detailed dynamics/meta-logic; less explicit on acausal origin. | Typically takes physical laws as axiomatic; less explicit meta-logical principles for ultimate origin of laws. | Interpretations of quantum mechanics, not a more fundamental principle from which QM emerges; less unified scope. | Information as derivative vs. fundamental (key distinction); autaxys provides underlying generative mechanism for patterns. | Identifies problem but may not propose a single, unified, comprehensive alternative generative principle. | **4. Discussion** The introduction of autaxys and its generative engine aims to cultivate a fundamental shift in perspective—a “new way of seeing” reality, with profound implications for foundational understanding. **4.1. Autaxys as a “New Way of Seeing”: Implications for Foundational Understanding** A core implication of the autaxic framework is the transition from substance-based ontologies, which posit fundamental “stuff” (like matter or mind) as primary, to a process-pattern ontology. In this view, reality is not composed of static entities but is an ongoing, dynamic unfolding of autaxys. Perceived stable “things”—particles, objects, even physical laws—are understood as persistent, emergent patterns of autaxic activity. This perspective seeks to dissolve conventional separations (e.g., entities/behaviors, objects/space) by grounding them all in the singular, unified generative activity of autaxys. The focus shifts from “what things are made of” to “how patterns emerge, persist, interact, and evolve.” Autaxys provides a naturalistic and intrinsic grounding for emergence and the evolution of complexity. The generative engine, with its interplay of operational dynamics and meta-logical principles, offers a framework for understanding how novel structures and behaviors can arise spontaneously without external design. Complexity becomes an expected outcome of autaxys’ inherent tendency to explore its generative potential. This offers a path to understanding reality’s hierarchical nature—from fundamental patterns to cosmic structures, life, and potentially consciousness—as strata of autaxic emergence. This “new way of seeing” is a practical shift in approaching foundational questions, aiming to bridge disparate phenomena through a unified generative engine. **4.2. Unique Contributions of the Autaxic Framework** While sharing common ground with analogous frameworks, autaxys offers several unique contributions to foundational inquiry: - **Integrated Generative Engine:** Autaxys provides an explicitly integrated framework of specific operational dynamics (Relational Processing, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Feedback, Resonance, Critical State Transitions) and meta-logical principles (e.g., Intrinsic Coherence, Parsimony). This level of detailed, interconnected intrinsic mechanisms for how order emerges is more comprehensive than many analogous theories, which often describe that self-organization or emergence occurs, but not the precise, intrinsic ‘how.’ This detailed articulation of the generative engine provides a mechanistic (albeit non-mechanistic in the traditional sense) account of intrinsic self-generation, which is a unique level of detail for a foundational principle. - **Acausal Origin and Intrinsic Lawfulness:** Autaxys explicitly posits the acausal origin of its fundamental principles and that its “meta-logic” is inherent, ensuring self-sufficiency in generating order and providing a strong naturalistic grounding for the origin and consistency of physical laws. - **Direct Resolution of Fine-Tuning:** The framework offers an internal mechanism for the “fine-tuning” problem, suggesting autaxys inherently “tunes itself” via its synergistic dynamics and meta-logical principles, settling into stable, complexity-supporting regimes without external tuners or purely anthropic explanations. This contrasts with external tuner or purely anthropic explanations, re-framing fine-tuning not as a mystery but as an expected outcome of a self-organizing, self-regulating, and complexity-seeking fundamental principle. - **Information as Derivative:** Its clear stance on information as a derivative property of patterns, rather than a fundamental substance, resolves ambiguities in some information-based ontologies, positing that the capacity to generate patterns is primary. This clear stance on information as a derivative property of patterns, rather than a fundamental substance, provides a distinct ontological position that resolves ambiguities present in some information-based ontologies where information is considered the ultimate ‘stuff’. Autaxys clarifies that the capacity to generate patterns is primary, and information is what is extracted or perceived from these patterns. - **Unified Explanation for Disparate Phenomena:** Autaxys aims to unify phenomena such as wave-particle duality, the quantum measurement problem, the origin of physical laws/constants, and the emergence of complexity under a single generative root, striving for a more integrated and parsimonious understanding. This holistic approach aims for a more integrated and parsimonious understanding of the universe. **4.3. Proposing Areas for Interdisciplinary Dialogue and Integration** The autaxic framework presents numerous opportunities for interdisciplinary dialogue and integration, fostering a more holistic understanding of reality: - **Formalization and Modeling:** Dialogue with computational physics and complex systems theory is sought to develop formal mathematical or computational models of autaxys’ generative engine, potentially using tools like category theory, as seen in some ‘generative ontology’ models, to formalize the relational dynamics and meta-logical principles. - **Empirical Correlates and Anomalies:** Collaboration with experimental physics is crucial to derive testable predictions, particularly for phenomena not manifesting as conventional particles/forces, and to re-evaluate existing anomalies through the autaxic lens. This involves innovative methodological thinking and critically re-evaluating existing anomalies through the autaxic lens. - **Quantum Foundations:** Deepening dialogue with Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) and Emergent Quantum Mechanics (EQM) can explore how autaxys’ principles (relational processing, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, emergent spacetime) can inform, or be informed by, interpretations of quantum reality and measurement, potentially framing autaxys as a meta-framework from which QM emerges. - **Cosmology:** Developing autaxic models to account for large-scale structures, cosmic evolution, and phenomena like dark matter/energy from first principles is a vital research direction, potentially integrating insights from work like Chaisson’s (2001) on cosmic evolution, which explains complexity through energy flow and non-equilibrium thermodynamics without external design. - **Consciousness Studies:** A profound frontier lies in elucidating autaxys-generated pattern properties correlating with subjective experience, building on process philosophy and quantum mind theories (Atmanspacher, 2011), such as David Bohm’s ‘implicate order’ where mind and matter emerge from a deeper level. - **Philosophy of Science:** Engaging with structural realism (Ladyman, 2024) and process philosophy can refine autaxys’ ontological implications and its fundamental shift from substance-based views. These areas highlight autaxys’ potential as a unifying framework, inviting collaboration to foster a more holistic understanding of reality. **4.4. Challenges and Future Research Directions within Autology** The development of autology, the systematic study of autaxys, presents considerable challenges but defines a rich and transformative research program: - **Formalization:** A primary task is developing formal mathematical or computational models of autaxys’ generative engine to transition from conceptual articulation to a predictive theory, requiring innovative mathematical tools. - **Empirical Contact:** Deriving specific, testable predictions, especially for phenomena not manifesting as conventional particles or forces, requires innovative methodology and re-evaluating existing anomalies through an autaxic lens. - **The Autaxic Table of Patterns:** A key long-term goal is the systematic classification of fundamental patterns generated by autaxys (analogous to chemistry’s periodic table), deriving their properties from autaxys’ dynamics and meta-logic. This ambitious endeavor suggests a long-term vision for a predictive, classificatory science of fundamental patterns. - **Consciousness:** Elucidating the specific organizational and dynamic properties of autaxys-generated patterns that correlate with subjective experience remains a profound frontier, bridging fundamental processes and qualia. - **Cosmology:** Developing autaxic models to account for large-scale structures, cosmic evolution, and phenomena like dark matter/energy from first principles is another critical direction. The explicit acknowledgment of these challenges, particularly formalization and empirical contact, underscores a commitment to evolving autology into a robust, empirically grounded scientific discipline, despite the inherent difficulties of such a foundational endeavor. The explicit listing of formalization and empirical contact as primary challenges demonstrates a commitment to scientific rigor. This indicates that autology is not intended to remain a purely speculative philosophical concept but aims to evolve into a robust, empirically grounded scientific discipline. The challenges highlight the immense scope and potential difficulty of this endeavor, but also its transformative potential if successful. **5. Conclusion** This paper has introduced autaxys as a fundamental ontological principle characterized by intrinsic self-ordering, self-arranging, and self-generating patterned existence (Quni, 2025a, 2025b). Its “generative engine”—a synergistic complex of core operational dynamics and inherent meta-logical principles—has been detailed, describing how autaxys may give rise to all discernible phenomena, including matter, energy, spacetime, and physical laws, as emergent patterns without recourse to external agents or pre-imposed rules. The autaxic framework proposes a “new way of seeing” reality, shifting from static substance-based ontologies to one grounded in dynamic processes and emergent patterns. It seeks to provide a coherent, generative understanding of the cosmos, grounding the origins of order, complexity, and lawfulness in the immanent nature of reality itself. The comparative analysis demonstrated autaxys’ conceptual resonance with, yet distinct contributions from, frameworks like process ontologies, complex adaptive systems, and theories of emergent physics. Its unique contributions lie in its explicitly integrated generative engine, offering a naturalistic explanation for phenomena such as cosmic self-tuning and the inherent drive towards increasing interactive complexity, while positing information as a derivative aspect of its generated patterns. While developing a full autological theory presents challenges, including formalization and empirical contact, the conceptual framework of autaxys and its generative engine provides a robust starting point for scientific and philosophical inquiry. By positing a universe that is intrinsically creative, ordered, and intelligible, autaxys invites deeper engagement with the fundamental nature of existence, holding the transformative potential to reshape our understanding of the cosmos. The continued exploration of autaxys holds the transformative potential to reshape our understanding of reality from its most fundamental level upwards. **6. References** - Atmanspacher, H. (2011). Quantum approaches to consciousness. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), *The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy* (Winter 2011 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/qt-consciousness/ - Bateson, G. (1972). *Steps to an ecology of mind*. University of Chicago Press. - Bickhard, M. H. (2009). The interactivist model. *Synthese, 166*(3), 547–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9261-2 - Brading, K., & Castellani, E. (2016). Symmetry and symmetry breaking. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), *The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy* (Winter 2016 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/symmetry-breaking/ - Burgin, M. (2008). *Foundations of information theory*. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0808.0768 - Carmichael, T., & Hadzikadic, M. (2019). The fundamentals of complex adaptive systems. In T. Carmichael & M. Hadzikadic (Eds.), *Complex adaptive systems* (pp. 1–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20309-2_1 - Chaisson, E. J. (2001). *Cosmic evolution: The rise of complexity in nature*. Harvard University Press. - De Gosson, M. (2018). The quantum potential and the factorization of the Schrödinger equation. *Entropy, 20*(11), 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/e20110839 - Dorato, M. (2023). Relational quantum mechanics. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), *The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy* (Summer 2023 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/qm-relational/ - Kauffman, S. A. (1993). *The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution*. Oxford University Press. - Kravchenko, A. V. (2019). The embodiment of autopoiesis in the Varela-Maturana theory and its significance for the study of the foundations of evolution. *Constructivist Foundations, 14*(2), 135–145. - Ladyman, J. (2024). Structural realism. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), *The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy* (Summer 2024 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/structural-realism/ - Maudlin, T. (2018). Ontological clarity via canonical presentation: Electromagnetism and the Aharonov–Bohm effect. *Entropy, 20*(6), 465. https://doi.org/10.3390/e20060465 - Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). *Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature*. Bantam Books. - Quni, R. B. (2025a). *A new way of seeing: Perceiving patterns from autaxys* (Version 1.0.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15527089 - Quni, R. B. (2025b). *Autaxys and autology: Definition, rationale, and implications* (Version 1.0.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15527008 - Rosen, R. (1991). *Life itself: A comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin, and fabrication of living systems*. Columbia University Press. - Seibt, J. (2022). Process philosophy. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), *The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy* (Summer 2022 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/process-philosophy/ - Shevchenko, S. V. (2021). *Information as a manifestation of spontaneous symmetry breaking*. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.07040 - Walleczek, J. (2018). Emergent quantum mechanics: An introduction. *Entropy, 20*(10), 799. https://doi.org/10.3390/e20100799 * Whitehead, A. N. (1978). *Process and reality: An essay in cosmology* (Corrected ed.). Free Press. (Original work published 1929)