• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

The Omnisema: A Void of Everything

Derrin Saan

Abstract

This paper proposes a background to reality that contains every possibility, and names it the Omnisema. It is a boundless “what” that exists before rules, patterns or laws. Inside it exist irreducible givens I call Semas, and outside that semal regime sit the rulebook I call Syntax. This paper argues that the familiar laws and constants are not ultimate choices, but are the outcomes of filters that carve ordered worlds from the Omnisema. Processes like quantum decoherence and cosmic inflation act as those filters, picking which possibilities become local realities at the quantum and classical scales which span the multiverse. My idea examines how a universe would look specific rather than infinitely varied, and extends to suggest a novel place to locate consciousness as intrinsic possibilities that become ontologically unique when systems decohere. Ultimately, I have provided a concise map that traces the realm of infinite possibility to the ordered world in which we find our existence.

Key Terms Defined

Omnisema / Plenitude

A domain of all logically possible entities. Non-computational and prior to rules.

Sema

An intrinsic property that exists in the Omnisema and is not derived from laws or calculation.

Arbitrary

Containing any degree of specificity; uncharacteristic of a plenitude. Hence questionable.

Axiom

A primitive assumption or rule taken as given within a formal system like the totality of mathematics.

Syntax

The axiomatic, rule-based system that governs the physics of Semas. Derivable and constrained. Mathematical, not to be confused with linguistics.

Gödel's incompleteness

Result showing any consistent axiomatic system contains truths it cannot prove and cannot prove its own consistency.

Group Theory

In physics, Group Theory organizes intrinsic particle properties (e.g. spin, charge) as representations of symmetry groups, structuring interactions and conservation laws.

Semal Coexistence

The simultaneous presence of two or more Semas within the Omnisema.

Epistemic Structural Realism (ESR)

Philosophical stance that scientific knowledge captures only the structure (relations, patterns, laws) of reality, not the actual ontology of entities involved.

Decoherence

Process where entanglement with environment suppresses quantum interference, producing classical outcomes.

Eternal inflation / Bubble nucleation

Cosmological process where inflation spawns causally separated spacetime regions with distinct natures.

Qualia

A subjective phenomenal property that is treated here as a Sema, with consciousness emerging from its decoherence and entanglement.

Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR)

A speculative theory of consciousness by Penrose and Hameroff proposing that quantum state reductions in microtubules give rise to subjective awareness.

Introduction

Fundamental reality becomes fallacious when conceived as anything other than strict infinity or strict singularity unless its emergent manifests are arbitrary. Fundamental reality—if it is an intelligible entity—either has a mathematical platonic existence for its possession of intrinsic axioms, or we live in nihilism. Therefore, if we are to have any philosophical inclination, we must put faith for the former to be true, and all meaningful philosophies to be assuming that a platonic mathematical reality fundamentally exists.

I imagine that any philosophically inquisitive reader has at some point felt bewildered by the world, whether it be its physical nature, the apparent rules it abides, the unshared subjectivities of its inhabitants, and so on. We ask these questions because they feel fundamentally arbitrary. Had reality always been in perfect symmetry in every conceivable aspect, there would be no notion of fundamental arbitrariness and no such questions to ask. The chief motivation for this paper is the problem of arbitrary reality. Amongst many thinkers, namely Lovejoy, Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Spinoza, and Leibniz, the principle of plenitude—the idea that all possibilities that could be logically permissible must exist—is the only justifiable resort in response to the existential question for the appropriate configuration of reality. I myself am of this stance for the reason that if it is not so, then the only non-trivial alternatives would be that all logically valid possibilities must not exist, all logically invalid possibilities must not exist, or all logically invalid possibilities must exist: the first two result in no reality, emergent nor fundamental, which we know is false, and the last simply negates the existence of logic.

So it follows that a non-arbitrary reality ought to be a plenitude, yet all which appear before our senses, comprehension and imagination—objects, dimensions, rules and actualities alike—possess a specificity which pertains in contrary to the characteristics of an expected plenitude. We end up with the question: how does one actually conceive what is real when one cannot conceive why what is not real is not? And why is it that the universe contains a finite amount of possibility, that is say, why is our reality not a plenitude? This arbitrary form, be it mathematical or physical, in which our universe takes is succinctly the absurdism of reality. In this paper, I share my philosophy, that through the distinction between Sema and Syntax, we could gain some insights as to why our local reality is arbitrary, why intrinsic reality ought to be a plenitude (and hence not arbitrary), and how possibilities, such as subjective consciousness, actualizes from this plenitude. Before proceeding, it is important to declare that what I personally provide in this paper are not meant as substitute for scientific knowledge or empirical research, but a philosophical exploration for sake of discussion, and hopefully inspire inquiry upon readers.

Mathematical incompleteness demands a non-syntactic infinity

To speak on the nature of reality, it is most appropriate to first confront the nature of mathematics as its transcription. Perhaps the most philosophically startling aspect of mathematics is Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which states that a (sufficiently complex) formal system must always contain some truth of which the system itself cannot prove, and nor can the system prove its own consistency. This poses an absolute, inherent limitation to any axiomatic system. Since all mathematics is inherently axiomatic regardless of whether axioms are explicit or implied, we seem forever stuck with the notion of existing incoherences we cannot terminate by computation. On top of this, the very definition of axiom as a foundational assumption is distasteful to any inquiry of reality that centers on a lack of arbitrariness.

Since it is in our philosophical interest to absolve unprovability, we are to deal with the incompleteness itself, that is, the unprovable truth(s) in every formal system. It is well established that suppose we promote each unprovable truth into an axiom, we are left with a wider encompassing system that has its own renewed set of unprovable truth(s). This uncompromising picture, with respect to the totality of reality, is as such:

We conceive of universal logic as the mathematical appearance from ensuring the harmonized coexistence of all possible axioms. Logic as an entity is analogous to a “fabric” stapled into a coherent shape by all possibly relevant axioms of reality serving as “pins”. The abstract fabric that yields is always a fabric with at least one hole which signifies Gödel's incompleteness. Promoting that hole into an axiom is as if we have stuck a pin into the hole, and the consequent remolding of the fabric adds at least one hole.

The philosophical dissatisfaction lies not only in incompleteness, but also in the very usage of axioms as noted earlier. One may think of the idea to fix axiomatic arbitrariness by using two systems with disjoint axiom sets to each prove the other's axioms. If we start with some theory A's axioms and derive some other theory B's axioms; then in B, we start with B's axioms and derive A's axioms. However, this falls short because this is only the case when A and B are effectively the same theory. This means they must be mutually interpretable or definitionally equivalent, such that each theory can be faithfully translated into the other and the translated axioms become theorems. If the two theories are definitionally equivalent, they carry in essence the exact same arbitrary content. This means that we can never eliminate foundation assumptions; we can only change which statements we take as primitive. In this sort of dual relationship of systems, there are always two directions to view it at. In one direction, the axioms of A can derive axioms of B into unassumed results, but if we flip the direction, axioms of B become assumed again and axioms of A unassumed. There is no way to end up with a grounded system that has no primitives at all.

Thus my central claim: A non-arbitrary account of reality requires a platonic, axiomless plenitude which I shall call Omnisema. The absence of axioms means that its regime is strictly uncomputable, outside formal derivation and physical explanation. It is the logical canvas of total possibility, unbound by any (syntactic) restriction. Mathematicians would denote this as infinite inconsistency, however, I propose that the Omnisema be interpreted as a reassuring background for Semas that are independent of the Syntax we find so troubling from Gödel's incompleteness. It also helps that the existence of an Omnisema would supply meaning for which Syntax cannot grant itself.

Before elaborating, I should clarify what I mean by Semas independent of Syntax. Gödel's incompleteness is a syntactic limitation. An Omnisema, by contrast, contains all things not derivable—that is to say, an infinite ensemble of Semas. In this framework, a Sema is precisely that which cannot be deduced by axiomatic methods, whilst Syntax would be the unified entity that traces every possible axiom, or mathematics. There is in principle no restriction to what exists in the Omnisema with the exception that Semas must be purely “semal,” as in there must be no dynamical causality between Semas and Syntax by their very definitions, as all dynamics (and kinematics) are purely Syntax. Note that the Schrödinger equation, amongst the most fundamental Syntax in physics, is a law that functions like an axiom about dynamics relating to the wave function; it is not a selection axiom about semal content. The equation merely stitches together amplitudes over the possibility-space, and does not dictate possibility in itself. There is, however, a crucial need for a mechanism that forces certain semal possibilities to instantiate from the rest, since it is required that we explain why reality, as it appears, contains patterns and regularities which stand out, and is hence not a plenitude.

If we were to view the totality of mathematics, presumably beyond what is known of it today, as an objectively maximized syntactic formal system that is consistent, we are undoubtedly left with Gödel holes as stains of incoherence. What I propose to be a plausible interpretation is for all such holes be strictly unaxiomized. That is to say, all sources of incompleteness within an objectively maximized Syntax are sourced to the Omnisema, in which all objectively unprovable truths (or Semas) exist. The stains of incoherence are patched as we sidestep the vicious loop of axiom → new hole → new axiom by recognizing these holes as features of a broader tapestry. I contend that we should seriously consider that this might be a plausible interpretation since an Omnisema is, by definition, that which is not constrained by any rule (hence by any axiom), and every Sema is of a non-computational ontology. However, I must emphasize that this is not a resolution for Syntax since Gödel incompleteness proves there is none. I am merely considering an interpretation for an inherent, fundamental, non-computational regime that the reality of this philosophy requires, one that would be met after all possible calculation has been wholly exhausted in consideration, and importantly, one that is necessary to resolve the problem of reality being intrinsically arbitrary. This marks the grounding principle behind the reasoning in this paper: the world is not absurd only if literally any Sema could exist and has infinite opportunities to exist.

I ask of the reader to think of this philosophy as an alternative mindset to Occam's razor. Simplicity and low arbitrariness, though related, are different. A premise of simplicity is that which consists of a small number of constituents (be it objects or rules) and obeys any set of axioms. A premise is less arbitrary if it is simple but it additionally requires the set of axioms to be minimal. Occam's razor states to choose the simplest explanation, which generally correlates to lower arbitrariness by lessening either or both the number and “weight” of axioms. That said, Occam's razor is obliged to have some axiom, yet having no axiom is simpler than having one. Whilst the issue of simplicity can theoretically be resolved through full scrutiny of physics in a given universe, the issue of arbitrariness remains until we accept that there exists no axiom for what is or why is at the most fundamental conception of reality.

Relation of physics to semal ontology

It is here that I shall supply the epistemological theme so far with a metaphysical relevance to the physical universe. Everything to be denoted hereafter will be of a nature more exploratory than argumentative due to the ambitious nature of this topic relative to my own credentials. All the things I will later present are motivated by my belief that the knowledge of cosmology and physics we have today is already enough to provide the explanatory bridge needed for marrying this metaphysical necessity of a plenitude with the emergent reality we find ourselves in. Hence my task is to lay out how—not mainly “why”—this is possible.

How is our world arbitrary? There is an extraordinary number but this paper will only focus on the most fundamental few. The first thing that comes to mind is that our universe does not contain contradictory Semas. This immediately negates an infinitely encompassing plenitude. Moreover, the apparent universe has specifically three dimensions of space and one of time, and thus takes the form of an arbitrary geometry. Even if higher dimensions exist, they would be compactified or perceived as compactified by us—arbitrary either way. Furthermore, the universe consists of a very small, finite set of Semas: mass, electric charge, spin, color change (for quarks and gluons), flavor (for fermions) and Majorana/Dirac nature (for fermions).

Why those to be exact? I identify Semas as intrinsic quantum properties inherent in physically existing objects (particles) that we can surely detest are irreducible. It demands that they be semal because they are not extrinsically derived by computation (dynamics, symmetries) nor frame or interaction dependent, but inherent, self-evident facts within quantum systems that exist in the universe and give meaning to any particle. This is to say that they do not exert their presence unto any Syntax but merely transcribed by its description. No matter how rigorous we transverse kinematics and dynamics, our computation will never yield the actual substance of that which it can merely refer to by name. Other quantum properties like parity, CP eigenvalue, chirality/helicity, magnetic moment, lepton number, baryon number, isospin and hyperspin are not semal since they are derived. They are Syntax. Therefore, based on what was posed in prior paragraphs, it is these properties at the fundamental level of physics that can be called semal. Semas are truly fundamental because they cannot “feel” any syntactic influence, and it follows that these possibilities are sourced to a non-axiomatic, Omnisema.

As a side note before proceeding, it is actually not entirely accurate on my part that some quantum properties—like spin, mass and charge—be listed as purely semal due to Group Theory, which syntactifies certain intrinsic particle properties (that would otherwise be dismissed as irreducible) as representation data of symmetry principles from which they can be derived, thus giving them each a mathematical structure and anchoring them under newly postulated axioms (groups, parameters, patterns of symmetry breaking). However, this is not a real problem for my philosophy since Group Theory does not in any way close up the Gödel incompleteness which motivates my Omnisema. That is to say the additional Syntax deposited by Group Theory contributes more axioms to be considered, and thus only increases arbitrariness independent of the underlying semal level which is unchanged by it. At worst, Group Theory merely demands clarification that the semal essence of spin, mass and charge lie within the subtleties of our definitions for them, but still they exist somewhere within their syntactic “shells” in concept.

It is my intention to resolve the astronomical issues of this highly metaphysical plenitude as closely adhering to credible avenues of modern physics as I can, and amongst these I find eternal inflation to be a highly promising one. To begin with, if our intention is to rule out any arbitrary cause, then a model for a multiverse is undoubtedly needed to account for the anthropic arbitrariness of our universe. Particularly, it is essential that we embrace its allowance for segregating contradictory laws of nature, contradictory form of dimensionality and contradictory Semas out of causal reach, such that such contradictions are not impacted, since impact is necessarily transcribed through Syntax. We can extend this idea to possibly include, for this philosophy, a finite diversity of Semas present in each universe, each containing an itty-bitty of the Omnisema. Thus, in the picture put forth, eternal inflation is to be seen as a crucial mechanism that segregates contradictory semal possibilities from the Omnisema, and a preferable model over cyclical universe theories which unsatisfactorily permits only a finite set of semal instantiations at a time per aeon.

As for dimensionality, it is most certainly the case with respect to our philosophical goal that the fabric of spacetime be not fundamental, and that infinite configurations of geometries exist elsewhere. In this paper, let us accept the case of which spacetime is emergent from quantum degrees of freedom, possibly from quantum entanglement patterns as proposed in several existing theories. After all, we have good reasons to presume that the foundational Syntax of reality is that described by quantum mechanics for the following explanation.

Syntax relies on axioms for us to comprehend, which strikes us as arbitrary. However, we will see that it is not arbitrary if Syntax as a whole is a necessary implication from the existence of more than one Sema, such that there exists a distinction that necessitates relations that can be computationally elaborated. Let us refer to this notion as “Semal Coexistence”. In this sense, the notion of each Gödel hole being a general semal potential implicates the totality of emergent axioms and logic, as this general notion must admit infinite semal diversity under the same generalized Syntax. The Syntax itself is not governed by the principle of plenitude since it is merely a necessary implication on which Omnisema can run. Syntax instead is governed by a logical necessity of implications. An appropriate hierarchy of emergent axioms (to be explored later) can lessen our perception of arbitrariness in this elaborate sequence of implication—necessarily supplanted in the quantum realm since the larger the scale the more emergent constraints get built up in that upper resolution of the logical fabric. It is that which makes things appear arbitrary. There is inherently more freedom within quantum Syntax, as logic in this realm inhibits itself to a much lesser extent due to less emergent patterns (appearing as rules) being present. This is why classicality is highly arbitrary, and conversely, why quantum theory appears “weird” to human intuition.

Classicality emerges after much of the initial plenitude of dynamical allowance has been ruled out, carved into effective regularities, but are otherwise valid in the quantum resolution. This is due to the chain of dynamical implications prompted by the continuation of Semal Coexistence the further we zoom out. At the quantum scale, there are less things implicated by Semal Coexistence such that the description for quantum reality is less constrained, and things that would otherwise lead to contradiction (implausible in classical reality) do not contradict—that is, before those boundaries become implicated in the larger Syntax. In other words, the scope of quantum Syntax is too small for its “weirdness” or “plenitudinousness” to be syntactically ruled out, such as the case of superposition. This is consistent with quantum decoherence whereby quantum systems lose their quantum character through wildly entangling with the (practically) untraceable environment. The observed pointer states from quantum Darwinism represent the specific Semas that have been transferred from the smaller Syntax where superposition holds up into the larger Syntax where superposition situations do not. It must be inferred that the phenomenon of superposition is far less arbitrary compared to classical definite configuration, since superposition would be a more direct implication of the Omnisema, allowing more possibilities, and classicality a further elaborated implication, allowing less. Then indeed, if this transition is dependent on scale, it follows that space(time) should fundamentally be of the nature of quantum Syntax for itself an implication amongst implications within it—a localized syntactic arena.

Thus not only is the quantum realm inherently more characteristic of a plenitude, we can moreover consider a new perspective on quantum gravity that the planck scale be the regime at which geometry becomes “too plenitudinous” in its superposed forms, such that probing it yields no non-fundamental sense—i.e. not a sort of sense that could be syntactically understood.

The reader may have realized that I will be shortly met with the awkwardness associated with the measurement problem of quantum mechanics. I would be severely overstepping my boundaries to assert a particular interpretation as definitive. For the sake of philosophical exploration, some of the brainstorming later on will incorporate the Many Worlds interpretation—a choice owed to its minimal postulation for constraining possibilities. It seems more satisfying in this philosophy to embrace the Many Worlds branching mechanism as the enablement of all alternative possibilities, should there be no axiom at this level of the quantum realm which states otherwise. By the principle of plenitude , if indeed no axiom says “no” then there is no reason for the answer not be “yes” without it being arbitrary. However, I must stress that I am not arguing against alternative interpretations, and that this philosophy does not strictly reject, for instance, the Copenhagen interpretation, or any wave function collapses alike.

Ideas for syntactic emergence implicated by Omnisema

Let us brainstorm, using the ideas highlighted, a grossly simplified scheme for the possible levels of syntactic emergence, implicated by relations posed by Semal Coexistence.

Level 0: Pure semal possibility (Omnisema or axiomless plenitude).

Level 1: Unitary dynamics (universal Schrödinger equation).

Level 2: Decoherence and Many Worlds Branching (partitions wave function into non-interacting branches).

Level 3: Eternal inflation and bubble selection (nucleates bubbles with low-energy laws).

Level 4: Emergent spacetime manifold (grounds locality, causality and dimensionality within each bubble).

Level 5+: Low-energy effective theories and phenomena (particle content, constants, etc).

(Note: It is permissible that level 2 be a collapse, hidden variable or some other phenomenon, so long it is syntactically accounted for.)

The semal "what" resides in the level 0 Omnisema. The implicated "how" (which constitutes mathematical physics) is the Syntax that is every level thereafter. Semas are narrated by level 1 and beyond but are, in themselves, strictly within level 0 grounds.

Should the reader desire a more detailed and precise ladder for our semally implicated syntactic chain, consider the following emergent axiomatic sequence drawn from established formalisms in modern physics (that are of relevance), for which I shall not personally take any credit. It is to be implicated by Semal Coexistence, and is itself entirely Syntax.

ChatGPT:

A1 Distinguishability: A predicate 𝐏 on 𝑊 allows both 𝐏(𝑤) and ¬𝐏(𝑤) for different w ∈ 𝑊, representing a binary partition and the irreducible concept of a "bit."

A2 Convex-probability structure: The set of valid states 𝒮 is convex, with outcome probabilities respecting convexity.

A3 Continuous pure state manifold: The pure-state set P forms a continuous, compact manifold.

A4 Sesquilinear transition amplitude: A complex-valued function A on pure states satisfies linearity and symmetry properties.

A5 Born rule: Transition probabilities are the modulus squared of the amplitude: Pr(ψ→ϕ) = |A(ψ,ϕ)|².

A6 Density operators and POVMs: Mixed states are density operators ρ, and measurements are described by POVMs {Πk} with outcome probabilities Pr(ρ→k) = Tr(ρΠk).

A7 Affine linearity of processes: Physical transformations are affine, and pure states remain pure under reversible transformations.

A8 Continuous reversible connectivity: Pure state space 𝒫 is connected, with continuous one-parameter families of reversible maps between states, forming a connected Lie group.

A9 Local reversibility: Subsystems A and B allow independent reversible transformations on each.

A10 Trivial system and local tomography: A distinguished unit 𝟙 leaves a system unchanged, and composite system AB's joint state is determined by local measurements.

A11 Tensor-product structure: The joint state space of systems A, B is the set of density matrices on 𝓗_A ⊗ 𝓗_B, allowing entanglement.

A12 Purification: Every mixed state ρ_A has a purification |Ψ⟩_{AB} on a larger system, differing only by reversible transformations on B.

A13 Entanglement graph: An entanglement graph connects subsystems {S_i} based on entanglement, with edge weights derived from an entanglement measure.

A14 Regularity and continuum limit: The graph has translational invariance, and distances between vertices converge to a Riemannian metric in the continuum limit.

A15 Emergent causal order: Unitary evolution induces a causal order among subsystems, which becomes a light-cone structure in the continuum limit.

An alternative version without physics jargon:

A1 Distinction: Things must be separable into categories. That minimal split creates the first bit of information.

A2 Mixing: If you can tell things apart you can also form blends of them. Any weighted blend is itself a legitimate possibility.

A3 Continuity of possibilities: Those blends can vary smoothly. Possibilities form a continuous range not just isolated choices.

A4 Interference: Different possibilities can combine in ways that amplify or cancel each other. Combinations behave like waves.

A5 Realization rule: There must be a rule that converts those combination tendencies into actual outcomes. That links potential to what happens.

A6 Mixed descriptions: Some situations are genuine mixtures of alternatives rather than single fixed states. Observations must allow for that bookkeeping.

A7 Process consistency: Transformations must treat mixtures consistently. How things evolve cannot break the way blends are counted.

A8 Smooth reversible change: States can move into one another smoothly and back again. There is continuous, reversible motion through possibilities.

A9 Independent parts: Subsystems can be changed without destroying the rest. Parts retain autonomy while interacting.

A10 Local completeness: A trivial or neutral system exists so that you can study wholes by studying parts. Local measurements can fully describe a system.

A11 Composite wholes: When parts combine they can form a joint whole that is more than the sum of separate parts. New, inseparable relations can appear.

A12 Hidden wholeness: Any apparent uncertainty about a part can be seen as arising from a larger definite whole. The missing information can in principle live in a bigger context.

A13 Relational map: The pattern of strong and weak relations among parts can be represented as a network. That network captures how parts are linked.

A14 Large-scale smoothness: As the network grows regular patterns emerge that look like a smooth space. Local connections approximate a continuous arena.

A15 Emergent causality: The ways influences travel across that arena produce an ordering of events. That ordering becomes what we call cause and effect.

It is important for me to disclaim that the above content is an AI summarized generalization across frontier, speculative theories of quantum gravity research, and are not to be taken as definitive fact as of this date. The core message is that what is implicated in A15 is how quantum processes give rise to the familiar structure of cause and effect in relativistic spacetime; all owed to the syntactic consequences of interference, mixing and composition implicated by the Omnisema I am proposing.

It is safe to say that A1 to A6 are empirically grounded in experimental results, whilst A7 to A12 are somewhat theory-driven but still principled quantum mechanics. That said however, I believe a majority of physicists would accept the general gist of this kind to be, at the very least, promising and worthy of our philosophical consideration. It should also be noted that the structure depicted is deliberately tailored to the emergence of spacetime as the destination of interest, and to this I am not proclaiming that the implication chain necessarily only progresses in this specific direction, but still it is a direction that could account for the creation of our universe (with revision where need be). In other words, the direction of explanation is intentionally backwards, since one could in principle derive any syntactic story given A1 as the necessary starting point for structures (at any level of emergence) dependent on relation, which is to say any sort of structure whatever. The axioms that were listed after A1 form a layout for what is especially of interest to us as an explanatory suggestion, not the primary argument—that would be the agency of A1 as the most fundamental syntactic instantiation, being the “first” non-semal thing, existing “outside” the Omnisema. We may even consider A1 to be synonymous with Aristotle's First Mover or Aquinas' Uncaused Cause.

Nevertheless, we can thus infer how the principle of plenitude can thus create a mathematically traceable sequence that progresses from an Omnisema to an arbitrarily geometric, law abiding universe. We may even call this the result from both the Omnisema and a syntactic plenitude, in the sense that this is resultant of a scheme in which any syntactic possibility that is not ruled out (at the respective level of relevance) must be permitted, yielding this grand syntactic landscape in which each axiom builds a new logically permitted possibility from the previous ones. This plenitudinous, unbound and infinitely unbiased Syntax is what we call mathematics, and any subset that exclusively pertains to an already carved syntactic arena would be a highly context dependent (hence a much lessened) Syntax, a sort of which we call physics. In this sense, the infinite syntactic script pre-arena is identical to the mathematics that is fully knowable from within any arena. This is highly attractive as understanding its nature would actually require not empirical physics but pure mathematics accessible through a priori reasoning, for empirical inquiry is relevant only to specified realities.

What locally appears as arbitrary is a captured result from a necessary sequence of implications, as transcribed by quantum mechanics, where the Syntax of physics and the Omnisema it is prompted by are inseparably linked. My crucial point is should there be no plenitude to contain an infinitely diverse semal ensemble, there would be no non-arbitrary reason for A1, and hereby no physics nor universe to be implicated. Thus, this framework reconciles Epistemic Structural Realism (ESR), in that ESR supplies the epistemic frame for the syntactic ladder while leaving the Omnisema as an inaccessible ontology. Through calculation, we may know relations and structure due to Semal Coexistence, yet the semal essence remains intrinsically untouchable. Hence we are to treat ESR as the account of what physics uncovers, and the Omnisema as the metaphysical repository of the infinitely mysterious “what”. This division justifies taking syntactic axioms as our epistemic output while withholding any deductive claim about level 0 Semas. The tension between ESR's agnosticism on ontology and my commitment to platonic Semas is resolved by making ESR an epistemic constraint, and the Omnisema a separate metaphysical claim—providing a coexistence of things for which the idea of ESR emerges. By contrast, ontic structural realism would erase level 0; ESR preserves my level 0 claim and aligns with my explanations for why physics succeeds without revealing it.

Multiverse as a necessary semal and syntactic divider

The general scheme of this kind that has been outlined—on the caveat that it is continually supported by scientific research—should account for the Syntax of our universe's spatiotemporal existence and the laws of physics embedded in it. It so far, however, does not explain the arbitrary number of 3+1 dimensions, the arbitrary values of its physical constants (or more generally, all its physical mechanics), nor the small, finite set of Semas we find in it. For that, we shall add eternal inflation to the axiomatic ladder:

A16 Bubble nucleation: Quantum fluctuations of the inflaton field precipitate bubble nucleation events that carve out new (semi)classical spacetime regions.

This is necessary as unitary Schrödinger dynamics and any concept within the syntactic regime have no bearing on the “cherry picking” of Semas. Indeed, if spacetime geometry is a derivation of said dynamics, then a particular patch of spacetime could be considered a product of quantum decoherence that yields the conception of an independent universe, with characteristics locally appearing as that of a concretely defined classical object. More precisely, we are to think of universes as each a puny mixed state within the pure state that is the entire multiversal entanglement in the form of a glorious superposition—one that would subsume every possible contradiction in totality.

The prior usage of the word “classical” is a useful analogy, as to account for the universe's arbitrary affairs, it is the deviation from the small scope of quantum Syntax into the further implicated scope of classical Syntax that can account for these emergent regularities, which is again characteristic of quantum decoherence. As more emergent axioms are added, they introduce constraints that increase the arbitrariness of reality, and become more classical. We can hence justify the segregation of bubble universes for the reason that only ever a finite set of the infinite semal ensemble would actually be relevant amidst the limitations of each syntactically carved physics, nor would an infinite semal ensemble be necessary for it is too encompassing for existence to be meaningfully encoded within an independent universe which lies outside the plenitudinous regime. In other words, since each physics is a shrunken down slice of the infinite mathematics, appearing as an actualization from within their respective bubble, it is logical that there be a finite number of unprovable truths that would correspond to a universe's quantum physical properties, whilst the rest recognized simply as Gödel holes of mathematics (objectively maximized), such that their existences do not resonate with our perception of scientific entities. Nonetheless, all of the infinite Semas should instantiate from the Omnisema but only certain combinations land in the same “box” at the end, since every serving must end up in a bubble that approves of that serving. Metaphorically, an arbitrary (syntactic) script requires an arbitrary (semal) cast.

Since there are merely a handful of Semas in our universe, we can infer that a semal segregation of this sort must occur at an extraordinarily constrained level, which makes sense for bubble nucleation to emerge at a later stage. In this picture, not only would each universe have unique Big Bang boundary conditions and different sets of effective low-energy axioms (past A16), they would each contain a unique ensemble of intrinsic quantum properties whatever way they are to be manifested. A16 acts as a “gatekeeper” axiom for semal potentials, filtering the vast bank of semal possibilities (to which prior axioms had not discriminated) into the specifically constrained reality of a particular universe. The semal constituent of any universe is the subset of possibilities that passes the filter imposed upon that particular instance of A16, with every subset being different in the multiplicity of universes.

For the core purpose of resolving the apparent arbitrariness of our world, the idea essentially ends here. However, that is with the exception of considering the Many Worlds interpretation, to which there are some further details to mention. The Many Worlds interpretation profoundly impacts the axiomatic framework for emergent spacetime and its relation to eternal inflation by positing a deterministic evolution of the universal wave function with no collapse. Within this framework, the (local) ruling out of superposition does not happen in the form of random collapse but the situation is rather an entangling unitary interaction between a system and its environment, causing the global wave function to split into distinct, non-interfering Everettian branches, each appearing as a classical looking spacetime. As we get to A16, this quantum decoherence branching is combined with inflationary bubble nucleation, so a quantum fabric both splits into non-interacting sheets via entanglement and sprouts new bubble-pocket sheets from inflation. This means the Many Worlds multiverse and the eternal inflationary multiverse are fully compatible and orthogonal. They describe different kinds of splitting that can be combined: a global wave function includes inflationary geometries, and within each resulting inflationary “pocket universe,” standard quantum processes generate their own Everett branches.

Something to note is that when a single Hubble patch decoheres, in principle, it branches into an uncountable infinity of baby universes because quantum fields possess a continuous spectrum of possible low-energy configurations. However, in practice, due to the finite resolution of decoherence, the effective number of distinguishable branches is astronomically large but finite. Regardless, these first generation universes will further decohere into sub-branches, continuously compounding the multiplicity, so the total multiverse would be a “Cartesian product” of bubble and quantum-branch indices. Decoherence, in this view, is an ongoing, local process that continuously spawns new branches both “between-bubble” (creating classical spacetimes) and “within-bubble” (ensuring internal classicality for subsystems). That being said, I do not contend that the Many Worlds multiverse be necessary—despite its tremendous impact on plenitudinousness—but the inflationary multiverse remains essential so far as what is provided by modern cosmology.

The theory's implications on subjectivity (extension)

If we are to thoroughly make sense of reality, this philosophy must attempt to explain the extraordinarily special phenomenology of the mind. In this section, I will be proposing the perspective of treating subjective consciousness as having been derived from the Sema of qualia, adding it as one of the intrinsic quantum properties in our universe. I made this decision primarily due to a lack of satisfactory alternatives to the hard problem of consciousness, particularly computational approaches. I will briefly give several examples here: Searle's Chinese Room shows that purely syntactic symbol manipulation can yield no genuine understanding; absent-qualia and inverted-spectrum thought experiments, like Chalmers' conceivability of zombies, illustrate that identical computations, in principle, have no actual bearing on phenomenal content; moreover, Integrated Information Theory, Global Workspace Theory and Higher-order Thought Theory have been criticized for falling short of deriving any meaningful answer for phenomenal subjectivity.

If we are to subscribe to my ideas from the previous sections, we would allow the possibility that the whole notion of first-person experience resides entirely in the semal level. Since this is essentially already the case for familiar concepts such as mass, charge and spin—which we hardly ever question—I see no reason not to further explore this avenue for qualia, perhaps applicable to all particles or certain particles. If indeed we are to never successfully compute qualia, it would be increasingly sensible to perceive it as a semal term that in itself, by definition, never participates with our syntactic engagements. And should the field of mathematics be objectively maximized, we would expect such syntactic limitations due to Gödel's incompleteness, in which case, consciousness would be one of such if its qualia constituents are genuinely semal.

We now take a large speculative leap where I ask the reader to consider consciousness as an entangled system of qualia eigenstates. In this metaphysical hypothesis, consciousness subjectivity emerges from undifferentiated qualia superpositions that encapsulate all possibilities—a Hilbert space of subjectivity. A well-defined qualia would be described as the eigenstate of a classical outcome as the decohered result, as do other classical actualizations of quantum properties alike. Thus a conscious subject experiences a range (each particle may have a different qualia eigenvalue) of qualia arbitrarily unique to its species in broad terms. The uniqueness of qualia eigenstates amidst this entanglement would be attributed to quantum Darwinism and forms a specific slice of the infinite qualia Hilbert space.

I hypothesize that consciousness be the classical analogue to qualia. Each decohered subsystem of qualia entanglement, represented as AB for convenience, is a mixed state causally disconnected from the pure state that is the rest of the universe as the environment, say ABC. At the resolution of this singular universal entangled system ABC, there is no self or “other,” only a general notion of an ontological quality in the form of superposition. From the perspective of a decohered AB, repeated decoherence would, in principle, produce successive classical outcomes such that there permits a continuous perspective of a well-defined and spontaneously distinct observer, swaying away from the discrete and nebulous affairs within qualia superpositions to which there is no concrete self to attribute. Perhaps different beings exist along a continuum of intelligibility with varying sophistication in their entanglement configurations, where repeated decoherence within the local web of qualia superposition would lead to a different conscious state at each moment.

I imagine the term “repeated decoherence” have turned many readers off, since we can see that even if decoherence of qualia superposition were to be common, by standard physics, decoherence of this sort is not reversible, which would prevent any sustainable sequence of qualia needed in flux for ongoing, intelligible experience. This is where I shall take some inspiration from Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) for a necessary process to constantly form new superpositions of AB by recoherence, such that decoherence can continue to produce the stream of conscious instances in systems (organisms) that have evolved to undergo that process. Empirical complications aside for now, let us simply explore the hypothetical in which a particular subjective identity is to be defined on the basis of centralized qualia entanglement (i.e. centralized in the brain or body), where different beings would differ in how their dynamic decoherence patterns of entanglement configure potential experiences, so each consciousness can be understood as a unique resolution of the ontological field. It may be helpful to view consciousness as a “stop motion” of qualia—where each frame of this stop motion is one “snapshot” of each classical, decohered state, driven by the bouncing between quantum and classical regimes (an idea reminiscent of Orch OR but a much less controversial account on collapse or lack thereof).

This is the case if we are to recognize quantum Syntax as more foundational than classical Syntax, and also account for consciousness being a continuous, macroscopic-working process by the brain, of which the element of subjectivity cannot be syntactically derived (is semal). Then, a rapid quantum-classical engagement just described would be necessary for subjective experience, in order to, in each moment, retrieve from the ensemble of qualia possibilities available in quantum Syntax but most definitely too constrained to exist in the classical. Perhaps we feel alive not simply because we are biologically complex, but because phenomenology itself is the fluidity of (qualia) superposition within, whilst external, inanimate objects are strictly classical with a “decided” state of existence.

Should the reader find this sort of panpsychist view unacceptable, I may raise a slightly different approach, but it is only a perfunctory suggestion. Perhaps consider superpositions consisting of qualia and non-qualia simultaneous states, with a conscious moment resulting from the yielding of the qualia state via decoherence. The intention in both approaches is to impose qualia as an inherent quantum property in the universe—much like spin and charge—not merely as emergent artifacts surfaced from decoherence in general. In the first approach, the qualia-continuum superposition lies on an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, where the type of feeling is the consensus formed by the ensemble of all qualia state outcomes. The alternative two-state qualia–nonqualia superposition lies on a two-dimensional Hilbert space, where the type of feeling is dictated by the entanglement assembly of qualia qubits. Both approaches share the same core premise: decoherence triggers instances of qualia, and the specific manner of entanglement between qualia states would determine the nature of that consciousness.

I shall disclaim that much of this is brave guessing—as are all attempts at explaining consciousness—hence only added as an extension to the paper. I myself am doubtful about the two-state qualia-nonqualia idea. However, insofar as philosophical thinking is concerned, I contend that the infinite dimensional alternative be taken seriously for its logical validity and consistency with the metaphysics that I have laid out—I shall hope that others would expand on the idea. With respect to ESR, it follows that we can map relational patterns of conscious processes but never the intrinsic feel of qualia as a Sema. Thus, though not exactly the satisfying resolution we hope for, my metaphysics does go so far as addressing the hard problem of consciousness as that which cannot be syntactically resolved.

Conclusion

To wrap it all up, what destination has this voyage brought us? I began this paper by arguing that the problem of arbitrary reality be resolved through splitting Sema from Syntax, proposing an axiomless Omnisema as the fundamental, non-computable source of all logically possible semal entities, such as mass, charge and qualia. The Omnisema serves as the non-axiomatic background for unprovable Semas, thereby addressing Gödel's incompleteness and the arbitrariness of axioms. From this plenitudinous "what" of reality, axiomatic syntactic laws emerge as necessary implications for the coexistence of Semas, such that the perceived arbitrariness of our local universe can be explained by a sequence of emergent Syntax in relation to the fabric of spacetime and eternal inflation. Finally, the framework is extended to address the hard problem of consciousness by proposing qualia as an inherent Sema, with subjective experience emerging from the quantum-classical stop motion of entangled qualia eigenstates—of which the essence of subjectivity, like other Semas, remains fundamentally non-computational and aligns with Epistemic Structural Realism. Ultimately, should the reader find themself disagreeing with every notion my metaphysics has to offer, I shall hope that they at least sympathize with the ambition—as thoroughly demonstrated—of linking fundamental non-arbitrariness to the arbitrary appearance of both the objective and subjective realms of emergence.