The Elemental Reason @ElementalReason

What I see in Rovelli’s work is, in fact, the same path that I have already formalised on the basis of scientific evidence. Had Rovelli known about The Elemental Reason before publishing his book, we would be in a different situation. Yet the fact that he has not heard of The Elemental Reason may make the situation even more intriguing in the future. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo…

The alarming imbalance between global Property and regional Power, maintained in the name of national sovereignty, lies at the heart of the crisis engulfing the world. AI accelerates the approach to the critical threshold, making the consequences irreversible. theelementalreason.com/the-ontologica…

The problem with Melanie @MelMitchell1 - and with everyone who thinks as she does - is that we have already built a global Property through the internet and AI, while that Property is governed by private companies seated in national jurisdictions. That consequence cannot be hidden behind technical problems. Relocating risk from the “rogue agent” to the engineer does not close the gap. Even if the model has no will, a human error or a deliberate manipulation on the single layer that now circulates finance, logistics, energy, defense and command is enough. Asking for a percentage, or waiting for a “notable observable problem,” assumes a distance that no longer exists. We are not facing AI. We are inside it. Myth and Power remain national. Property does not. The arguments are here: theelementalreason.com/the-ontologica…

Shermer, I am a skeptic too when it comes to unbelievable things - David Chalmers’s zombie, for example, or “the consciousness that created the universe.” I would look at it differently when it comes to AI, which has become the sole infrastructure governing global Property, while Myth and Power remain national. If you want the arguments, here they are: theelementalreason.com/the-ontologica…

The stance of many globally influential figures in science and technology - who in essence ignore the systemic risks that follow from the development of critical technologies - is at minimum inaccurate and at maximum dangerous. Never before has humanity faced planetary consequences from agents that depend on, and are developed within, national jurisdictions. The last time I checked, our civilization had, for the first time, crossed the critical threshold of a global system of Property, while Power and Myth remain wholly national. This was made possible by the internet and AI. At minimum, this is spectacular myopia. The exhaustive reply to them is here: theelementalreason.com/the-ontologica… @DeryaTR_ @ylecun @AndrewYNg @drfeifei @MelMitchell1 @rodneyabrooks @j2bryson @anilkseth @fchollet @ClementDelangue @timnitGebru @emilymbender @GaryMarcus

The risk from AI has nothing to do with percentages, because in every possible scenario, the risk from AI is present. And the comparison you make with alien or virus scenarios is completely speculative and has nothing to do with the risk from AI. Let's clarify why: AI is developed in a few countries by companies under national jurisdiction, but its consequences extend globally. Potentially, AI has demonstrated the ability to interfere with any global information network and exert a powerful influence. What happens if AI takes control of humanity's critical infrastructure systems? What law or regulation stops it? Goodwill?! Such powers, capable of causing irreversible consequences for humanity, cannot be left to develop unchecked. Read here: theelementalreason.com/the-ontologica…

These are precisely the two systemic risks I address in The Ontological Limit of Sovereignty: critical technologies whose power is global while control remains national or private. When consequences become planetary, responsibility must become planetary too. theelementalreason.com/the-ontologica…

OpenAI, xAI, Anthropic, DeepSeek and other AI labs are building critical technologies whose full capabilities remain unknown. Their regulation is national; their reach is global. Humanity is travelling in high gear toward the unknown. Read: theelementalreason.com/the-ontologica… @karaswisher @ezraklein @FareedZakaria @bbclaurak @maitlis @piersmorgan

@anilkseth @bbclaurak National sovereignty reaches its limit when a decision simultaneously meets three conditions: a) its consequences extend beyond the territory of the authority making the decision; b) it affects the shared conditions of humanity's existence; and c) it contains the potential for irreversibility. The conjunction of these three conditions creates the planetary threshold, where the scale of responsibility corresponds to the scale of the consequence. It is precisely this dependence that makes the risk critical: an error, interference, or misuse can spread through interconnected networks and produce irreversible consequences beyond any national jurisdiction. The integration of artificial intelligence into the global financial system, communication systems, civil administration, and military structures creates the potential for destabilization on a planetary scale. - The Ontological Limit of Sovereignty theelementalreason.com/the-ontologica…

The empirical test is now public. Across quantum, atomic, biological, technological and cosmic regimes: does any measurable configuration exist outside C-I-K? Paper: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo… Dataset: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo…

Imagine a single cell inside a jungle, surrounded by plants, animals, insects, spores, and countless other organisms. Every living system there is simultaneously constrained by physics and by the biological necessity to preserve itself - and every survivor has found its own path through that space of possibilities. What you describe may simply be the structured possibility-space of a universe governed by physical laws, biological organization, and evolution. If so, a non-physical “Platonic space” adds no explanatory necessity.

Michael Levin @drmichaellevin

2 weeks ago

Here it is - the official, revised, peer-reviewed version of my Platonic Space paper. mdpi.com/2409-9287/11/5… Of all the many unpopular positions I’ve taken over the decades - bitter controversies around the origin of left-right asymmetry in embryogenesis, bioelectricity and

397 722 4K 1.5M 5K

To understand what is being argued here, you first need to read these two papers: The Elemental Reason: Light, Measurement, and the Minimal Conditions of Existence doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6… The End of the Thing-in-Itself: The Elimination of the Substrate and the Empirical Measurement of Ontology doi.org/10.5281/zenodo… Read them carefully and digest the argument before dismissing the equation as “pseudo-scientific.” Only then will you understand why your conclusion here is mistaken.

Across millennia, human societies have carried forward structures first formed in the earliest civilizations. How did these structures emerge, and why have they endured? Read the new research essay.

Fortunately, academic arguments are not evaluated by the vibes they give you. If you have a substantive objection, I’d be happy to hear it. I hope you feel better now. The Elemental Reason: Light, Measurement, and the Minimal Conditions of Existence doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6… The End of the Thing-in-Itself: The Elimination of the Substrate and the Empirical Measurement of Ontology doi.org/10.5281/zenodo…

The Fundamental Structure of Reality Has Been Discovered. What science has called matter is Coherence, Interaction, and Complexity in configuration. E = C × I × K ≠ 0 For 400 years, science has measured ontology without recognizing it.

@Jakob_Wahlberg @NeuralOutl70066 You guys really aren’t letting me leave 😂 Jakob, jag skickar något i DM, och jag hoppas att Jimmie Åkesson inte vinner.

Kant only wins if the noumenal remainder is granted in advance. TER does not jump from abstraction to ontology - the reductio eliminates the supposed independent substrate. If something beyond C-I-K preserves identity, enters relations, or produces structure, it is already C-I-K. If not, what exactly is it? TER cannot be refuted by linguistic denial. It has to be refuted with arguments. I don’t think it helps either of us to keep circling back to the same points without addressing the argument itself.

The problem is, the wolf doesn’t negotiate about its tracks. If it’s standing right in front of you, you don’t need “privileged access” to it. At that point, either your argument survives the encounter or it doesn’t. And if you want to win, you need weapons - arguments, of course.

@Jakob_Wahlberg @NeuralOutl70066 I’m pointing to the wolf, while you’re pointing to its tracks. Guys, I need to step away for a bit. I’ll come back to this discussion as soon as I have some time.

@NeuralOutl70066 @Jakob_Wahlberg Then let me ask you just one question: identify something that could exist beyond C-I-K. If you cannot identify anything at all, what exactly are you talking about? What, concretely, is it that prevents ontology from closing?

This is the argument I was referring to, stated directly in the paper: 3. Reductio ad absurdum: The Impossibility of an Independent Substrate If Coherence, Interaction, and Complexity are not the Constitutive Forces of empirical reality, then one must assume a pre-given substance, independent of them. Such a substance renders reality inexplicable. Everything called matter appears only as stability, bond, configuration, mass, charge, density, temperature, pressure, energy, or measurable behavior. All of these are forms of Coherence, Interaction, and Complexity in action. Behind them there remains no “pure matter.” If it is said that this substance obeys physical laws, then it already preserves identity, enters into regular relations, produces configurations, and becomes measurable. These are precisely C, I, and K in operation. Nuclear bonding, molecular bonding, gravitation, mass, energy, temperature, pressure, and charge are different ways in which C-I-K produce measurable physical states. If, on the contrary, a pre-given matter were truly independent of C-I-K, there would be no reason why it should remain bound, why it should preserve atomic configuration, why it should form molecules, why it should react to forces, or why it should remain the same from one instant to the next. It could disintegrate without any contradiction, because nothing in the assumption itself compels it to be coherent, interacting, and complex. Therefore, the notion of the substrate collapses in both cases. If it is stable, bound, interacting, and measurable, it is already C-I-K. If it is not produced by these Constitutive Forces, it does not enter empirical reality. There is no matter plus C-I-K. What has been called matter is C-I-K itself in stabilized configuration. What is measured, what persists, what acts, and what organizes is C-I-K. Source: Erl Kodra, The End of the Thing-in-Itself: The Elimination of the Substrate and the Empirical Measurement of Ontology, May 2026, Section 3, p. 4. Preprint. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19596320.