MAX TALLBERG

Coherent
Emergentism

– A Comprehensive Theory of Reality

Text © Max Tallberg 2025

Illustrations © Topi Raulo & Lotta Taarasti 2025

Layout: Mikko Siippanen / Bit & Page Ltd

Editor: Nina Toukoluoto

theoryofreality.net

Coherent
Emergentism

–A Comprehensive Theory of Reality

Max Tallberg

Table of Contents

Introduction 9

Perspective of the Text 12

Part 1 15

What Can We Already Assume to Know About Reality? 15

Understanding Reality – Fundamental Questions 18

Why Is Reality the Way It Is? 22

Understanding Reality from Its Fundamental Level 30

On the Ultimate Rules of Operation 31

On the Principles of Being 33

Scientific Perspectives on the Fundamental Level of Being 35

Being and Non-Being 38

More on Coherent Rules 42

Further Reflection on the Necessity of Coherent Rules 46

Even More Deeply on Rules 50

Local vs. Global Consistency 53

On the Multiverse, Natural Laws, and Determinism 55

Summary and Expansion of the Core Ideas of Coherent Emergentism 58

On Being and Coherence 59

The Mechanism of Coherence in Coherent Emergentism 61

The Ontological Nature of Coherence 63

On Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle 64

On Emergence 65

On Coherence and Emergence 66

Strong or Weak Emergentism? 67

On Determinism and Time 69

On Time 71

On Energy and the Origin of Everything 74

Coherence and Entropy in the Construction of Reality 76

On Information 80

On Gravity 81

Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Light of Coherent Emergentism 82

Dark Matter as a Manifestation of Structural Coherence 83

Dark Energy as an Expression of Global Coherence Dynamics 84

Conclusion: A Unified Interpretation of the Dark Sector 84

The Emergence of Physical Reality Based on the Coherence Filter 85

Spacetime as a Product of Coherent Interactions 86

Dark Matter as Invisible Coherence 87

The Laws of Physics as Emergent Constraints 87

Coherence: The Quantum Glue That Connects Spacetime and Gravity 88

Part 2 91

Broader Applications of My Theory of Coherent Emergentism 91

The Nature of Mathematics from the Perspective of Coherent Emergentism 91

On the Definition of Life 94

The Limits of Human Understanding and the Nature of Thought 96

On Consciousness and Free Will 98

Coherent Emergentism and Humanity 101

My Theory’s Perspective on Morality 103

The Theory and Spirituality 105

Coherent Emergentism as a Philosophy of Life 106

Society and Economy 107

Human Rights and Morality 109

My Theory’s Relation to Technological Development 110

Part 3 115

Arguments in Support of Coherent Emergentism 115

Further Arguments and Evidence for the Theory 118

How Coherent Emergentism Could Be Proven Valid 121

1. Strengthening the Distinction Between Being and Function 122

2. Partial Inconsistency as a Source of Complexity 122

3. The Role of Quantum Uncertainty in Reality Formation 123

4. Mathematical Perspective: Selection Among Possible Systems 123

5. Testability and Falsifiability of the Theory 124

Conclusion: Strengthened Evidential Basis 124

Possible Tests in Support of Coherent Emergentism 125

1. Quantum Level: Superpositions and Emergent Divergence 125

2. Biological Evolution: Identical Populations, Divergent Outcomes 126

3. Neuroscience: Identical Neural Networks and Emergent Divergence 127

4. Social Systems: Emergent Divergence in Human-Like Communities 127

5. Technology and AI: Identical Systems with Diverging Behavior 128

Conclusion: How These Tests Would Strengthen the Theory 129

Mathematical Evidence Supporting My Theory 130

1. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems: Internal Limitations of Formal Systems 130

2. Chaos Theory and Sensitivity to Initial Conditions 131

3. Fractals and Self-Organization 131

4. Category Theory and Structural Emergence 132

5. Topology and Structural Transformation 132

6. Network Theory and Emergent Connectivity 133

7. Quantum Algebra and Probabilistic Structure 133

Summary: How does mathematics support my theory? 134

What does mathematics mean for my theory? 134

Coherent Emergentism as a New Scientific Paradigm 135

I. What Makes My Theory a Scientific Paradigm? 135

II. Coherent Emergentism as a Unifying Framework Across Scientific Disciplines 136

III. New Questions Raised by the Theory 139

IV. Conclusion: The Science of Coherent Emergence 140

Postscript and Final Conclusion 141

Bibliography 145

For Päivi

Introduction

The most fundamental question concerning reality is: why is there something rather than nothing? When one attempts to answer this question, a number of other questions arise, such as: why is reality exactly the way it is? Has it arranged itself, or has it been defined by some external agent, force, or order? Is it necessary for reality to have a meta-level, and must this meta-level be in some way aware of reality or of itself? Why does reality exist—does it have some self-contained reason for its existence?

In this text, I present a theory that answers all of these questions. I propose that reality exists because it is necessary. I also argue that it has organized itself without the need for a meta-level or external guidance and that it is the cause of its own existence. In addition, I present further reflections related to my theory—regarding its ongoing development, its explanatory strength, and its relation to other prevailing theories. I also extend my examination to all aspects of reality and explore how my theory can be applied to them: to metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, and the human and social sciences. The theory I present here is thus a kind of proposal for a theory of everything in the broadest possible sense, and it also presents new perspectives related to this, which extend into both the nature of science and metaphysics. My theory is called Coherent Emergentism. Emergentism is the view that lower-level phenomena can give rise to phenomena that differ significantly from them at a higher level.

For example, in the philosophy of mind, emergentism refers to the view that the mind somehow emerges from the brain, but that mental properties and the laws that govern the mind cannot be reduced to the properties of the brain or to neurological laws.

My theory is based on a single foundational principle, which is as follows: only that which is coherent can persist. In my theory, everything is grounded in coherence. Coherent Emergentism is thus based on the principle that reality consists of structures organized coherently, whose existence does not require an external explanation or background assumption. Based on this, it can be argued that the theory that explains the existence and structure of reality with the fewest assumptions must be the best possible theory. This is not merely a practical or aesthetic principle but a consistent consequence of reality’s own principle of coherence.

If we accept that reality is coherent—that only internally consistent, self-sustaining structures can continue to exist—it follows that the theory which describes this reality must itself be as coherent and self-constructing as possible. In that case, it makes no sense to accept theoretical models that rely on numerous disconnected, external, or metaphysically unnecessary assumptions, such as a separate substance (e.g., dualism of mind and matter), an external designer (e.g., simulation hypothesis or God), or an uncontrolled accumulation of alternative worlds (multiverses). All such assumptions require further explanations: why do they exist, why in this specific form, and why does reality not function without them? This quickly leads to a weakening of coherence and theoretical regression.

On the other hand, if reality operates in the simplest possible way—such that its existence is necessary and its structure is built upon itself without external causes—then no additional assumptions are needed. Any theory that requires such assumptions is less coherent, less understandable, and more metaphysically burdened.

Thus, Coherent Emergentism is not only a coherent way of structuring reality—it is also the only known model that does not require external assumptions and does not violate the principle of coherence. If we accept that external assumptions should be minimized for the sake of comprehensibility and explanatory power, then Coherent Emergentism is the best possible theory of reality. All alternative models that violate this principle require explanations that make reality itself harder to understand or less rational.

In the first part of this work, I present my theory and explain how I arrived at it. In the second part, I expand the scope of the theory to encompass all of reality. Finally, in the concluding part of the book, I present additional reasons why I believe my theory is defensible, how the requirements it sets forth compare with those of other comparable theories, and how my theory could be shown to be valid.

Perspective of the Text

The perspective adopted in this text is the following: instead of merely presenting reasons and arguments for why I support my own theory and believe others should support it as well, I approach the topic—reality and its comprehensive nature—as broadly and systematically as possible. This approach includes the examination of all meaningful alternatives that I consider relevant for answering each significant question I raise.

As the text progresses, I also consider how these different alternatives could respond to new questions and explanations, decisions, and turning points that arise. I continually reflect on what kinds of larger structures these decisions form and examine their relationships to each other and to themselves. I aim to rely on all the knowledge we currently have about the world—on modern physics as well as other sciences and fields of knowledge.

I also boldly extend the main principles of my theory as broadly into reality as possible. However, this should be seen more as an experiment than as an absolute truth about how things certainly are. It is nonetheless fruitful to examine how my theory could also explain all that is not yet understood, or how the elements of reality could be connected to one another, considering the ambition and all-encompassing nature of my theory.

I also return several times to many of the ideas related to my theory, bringing up various new perspectives that fit the context in question. For this reason, there is a certain amount of repetition in the text. However, I believe that it is beneficial to revisit the core ideas of the theory multiple times—both for the sake of their comprehensibility and because of their central importance.

A careful reader may also notice partial inconsistencies in the text, depending on interpretation. I do think, however, that this is difficult to avoid at this stage, as the theory is still in the early phases of its development. I also do not have a deep understanding of mathematics and physics on a mathematical level, and therefore I am not able to present the ideas of my theory in such precise terms that no contradictions would be involved. I do hope, however, that researchers who thoroughly master these areas could in the future refine my theory, model it, and possibly demonstrate it to be true.

Even if the reader ultimately does not come to believe in or support my theory, its approach and line of questioning can still benefit the reader’s own thinking and offer new perspectives, insights, and tools for developing it. For this reason, I believe my text has value, regardless of how the credibility and truth of the claims I present may be shaped by the future.

Part 1

What Can We Already Assume to Know About Reality?

To begin with, we should consider what we know about reality with certainty, what we do not yet know, and what we can assume on that basis—both in relation to the present and the future—as well as what different possibilities we may presume to belong to the nature of reality. This reflection alone narrows the number of plausible answers and, at the same time, imposes requirements on them.

It can be stated that we know, at the very least, from our own experience, that something exists. We know this regardless of what the deeper essence of that which exists may be. We also know that we experience that something as a single reality, regardless of whether other realities may exist. Thus, we experience one reality, which is also internally consistent in the sense that two logically contradictory events cannot occur at the same time. If something happens, its opposite cannot happen at the same moment.

We also know that we experience time and its passage, and that this is connected to events and their sequence. We cannot be completely certain—at an objective or intersubjective level—about how these experiences relate to other beings, truth, or reality, but we do know that we ourselves experience reality in this way.

We can also, at least in my view, assume that everything that belongs to the reality we experience is in some way connected, at least indirectly. If this were not the case, we could not claim that everything is part of the same reality. When we know that we experience a single coherent reality, we can also assume the idea I just presented. For two separate things to exist at the same time within the same reality, they must at least be capable of influencing one another, even if only indirectly.

Connected to this, an important idea can be presented, which at least partially forms the foundation of my theory: if all levels of reality affect one another, at least indirectly, then reality must, at least in part, be based on its most fundamental and smallest level—and on how that level functions. Its principles are thus the ones upon which broader totalities are at least indirectly founded, and from which they are built.

What if reality did not have a single underlying logic and mode of operation? Is such a reality possible? According to my theory, it is not—because in that case, reality could not form into a sustainable whole. Instead, my theory proposes the following: coherence is the fundamental mechanism behind everything, but as it gives rise to new emergent wholes that operate in part differently from the lower levels, it may appear as if reality does not have a single underlying logic—even though this is precisely the effect of coherence at the most fundamental level, upon which everything else is built.

On the other hand, more generally, we also know that as humanity, we do not yet understand the overall nature of reality or its ultimate reason for existing. We also do not know with certainty by what means reality is fundamentally best understood. For example, if reality cannot, at its core, be understood through mathematics or physics—and this we cannot yet be certain of—then we can suggest that metaphysics still has something to offer as an approach, even if conclusions drawn from it cannot be proven objectively true. This may very well be justifiably the case, at least at a certain fundamental level. At the same time, such a broad approach allows for the possibility that by combining metaphysical reflection with everything we currently know about reality, we might reach the best possible understanding of it—an opportunity that, in my view, is greater today than ever before. This is also my own approach: I aim to combine metaphysical and logical reflection—both historical and current, from others as well as my own—with what we presently know about reality through science.

The first basic question related to this is: how can we know how reality can or should be theorized if we do not know its final nature or how it is best understood? From a metaphysical or logical perspective—for instance, by pondering why anything exists at all—we can still reasonably consider such reflection useful, even if it cannot lead us to final answers. Still, it might allow us to understand reality in a way that could be combined with knowledge and truths that are more robustly justifiable within their own framework. Mathematics and physics can be thought of as such disciplines.

Understanding Reality – Fundamental Questions

When we attempt to understand reality, the first question is naturally the same one that was raised at the beginning: why is there something rather than nothing? In the spirit of this text, I now ask: what are the possible ways to approach and answer this question? Immediately, two options come to mind: reality—that is, the fact that something exists—exists because it is necessary, because no other alternative can be conceived of as existing. This is, in its central aspects, the answer I myself believe in.

The second possible answer to the question is: reality has an external cause for its existence. If we believe this, the next question becomes: what is this cause? Must it necessarily be conscious of itself or of the nature and function of reality? I propose that something of this sort would have to be assumed if one were to choose this approach. Religions can be thought to follow this path: God or divinity is the reason something—our world, our universe, and our reality—exists.

If this perspective is chosen, the next question is: how does this agent influence our reality? Is it merely its initiator, or does it also actively affect its course or ultimate purpose? The more we move toward the latter option, the more significance we assign to this force and the less to other possible explanations. I myself am not willing to choose this latter option. I think that reality should be explained as simply as possible, which primarily means that the number of external explanations should be minimized, in line with Occam’s razor.

The more central a role we give to God, the bigger the leap we make in our assumptions, in my view. In my opinion, everything we know from science and what we have learned through it implies that external explanations—especially those that can be assumed to originate from the human mind and for which no support is found in scientific knowledge and understanding—should be rejected, and that we should not attempt to explain reality through such means. I also think that if we make such an assumption from the outset, we are necessarily forced to make more and more assumptions, which become increasingly difficult to justify. Questions that lead to such assumptions include, for example: Why is there suffering if God is omnipotent? Can God create a mountain so large that He cannot move it, if He is still omnipotent? In addition, we can also ask: if God exists, why would He relate in a special way specifically to humans and humankind, rather than to the animal kingdom or to possible life elsewhere in the universe?

On the other hand, we also can never conclusively prove that there is no room for divinity; a believer can always claim that God is the ultimate cause of reality, even if we could discover, through science, a self-sufficient reason for it and mechanisms and an initial state from which everything else could be derived. Perhaps such a statement contains something good and comforting from the perspective of the individual human being.

A third possible answer to the question of why something exists is that the cause of reality is circular: some parts of it are the cause of others, mutually reinforcing each other endlessly. Someone might suggest, for example, that consciousness is the cause of reality, and that reality is, in turn, the cause of consciousness. I find this a more useful perspective than the previous one—that reality has an external reason for existing. I myself lean toward the view that this circular idea can also be utilized, even if one believes that the first option—that reality exists because it is necessary—is the best answer to this most fundamental question. My own view, then, is that reality exists because there is no other option. It is thus also the cause of its own existence. However, this inevitably leads to a circular argument in which reality is its own foundation. I see, in any case, no alternative to this that would be equally well justified.

The problem with self-reference, however, is the following: traditionally, logic has held that everything must have some external reason for its existence. But this leads to infinite explanations, since one would always have to explain what that external reason is and where it originated. That is why I personally think that a self-sufficient reason is the best option. In my theory, however, coherence does not occur on its own—it is selected from among the forces and actions of reality as one of those capable of taking the form of coherent matter. Thus, the origin and cause of reality are not entirely self-sufficient. I will return to this theme later.

So even if the existence of reality could be thought of as necessary, it can also be considered that its emergence might have happened by chance. Perhaps reality went through several possible alternatives for being, but this current form was selected and further developed because it is the only—or one of the very few—ways that was so coherent and free from significant contradictions that it was able to sustain itself and continue evolving. In this sense, it would not be the only possible way for reality to take form, but the only one that has been able to develop this far, rather than remaining as mere potential or immaterial emptiness.

If reality must exist, it can also be more generally thought that it must contain its own reason for being, and that the same reason in turn defines how it develops. In my theory, this reason is coherence. However, this so-called reason does not refer to traditional cause-and-effect logic—at least not in its usual sense—but rather to a necessary condition that defines the structure and possibility of existence.

We can also reflect on whether we always ultimately arrive at a tautology when trying to understand reality. Similarly, we can consider whether this is due to our perspective—that we inevitably perceive reality to some extent through our own experience. My view is that some form of tautology is necessary, because if we want to understand reality with as few assumptions as possible, we cannot assume that there is some external entity or being that serves as the reason for reality’s existence. And even then, the question would arise: why does this entity exist, and who or what created it, and for what reason? I myself think that we cannot understand the fundamental nature of reality without arriving at either a necessity-based or a circular answer.

If, then, we assume as few external components or explanations as possible, we should say that reality exists because it is necessary; because it is the cause of its own existence; because it has no meta-level or external designer; and because its mode of operation is built into its existence. Thus, no external cause or designer is assumed, nor any plan or meta-level guiding the development of reality.

In this book, I also examine more closely what kind of theory one would arrive at if starting from these assumptions I have presented—and this is fundamentally the approach of my own theory. I also propose that my theory is the most natural way to answer these questions about the nature of reality, if one assumes as few external explanations as possible.

Even if the existence of reality is to be considered necessary, it can still be suggested that its emergence may have occurred by chance. Perhaps reality has gone through several options for being, but this current form has been selected and continued because it is the only—or one of the few—ways that has been coherent enough and contained no significant contradictions, enabling it to sustain and develop itself. Thus, it would not be the only possible way for reality to form, but the only one that has been able to develop this far, rather than remaining as mere potential or immaterial void.

Why Is Reality the Way It Is?

As we now approach the fundamental nature of reality, a question arises: what can exist, what cannot exist, and what is the relationship between these—both to themselves and to each other? We can begin by thinking that the relationship between the possible and the impossible is ultimately what reality consists of, emerges from, and evolves through. At first, we can also consider which kinds of realities could exist, and what questions, challenges, or answers might be associated with them. It is unlikely that a single all-encompassing answer to this question can be found, but perhaps one answer may offer the best justification—or perhaps a few such alternatives can.

The next question that arises is precisely this: why is reality exactly the way it is? Is it necessarily this way, or merely one realization among many possible options? Does the selection of this particular option happen continuously or only at the initial state? And could it be that, in this context, reality is ultimately deterministic, its development predetermined? In the following pages, I will provide my own answer to these questions and, in keeping with the approach I’ve already taken, will also explore alternative responses.

When we examine the nature of reality, in my view, the first question concerns the position we take regarding what is possible and what is not—as I have already preliminarily suggested. From their relationship, reality is formed: it consists of what is possible. However, it is also in relationship with what is not possible—either in the sense that what happens is the only possible sequence of events, or in the sense that it is merely one realized option among many. One could also think that the impossible thereby determines the only possible course of events, or instead determines all courses of events that are not possible. For this reason, we must consider not only what could be possible, but also what could not.

My own view is that, at some fundamental level of reality, everything must be possible. I believe all possible alternatives must, in some way, be open and able to be realized—if we want to think of reality as forming in a comprehensive way, that is, in a way that can also be exhaustively explained. If not everything is initially possible, we can always ask: what would be, if that missing possibility had been utilized? Consequently, we could not exhaustively explain the comprehensive nature of reality—nor its causes or meanings. Moreover, if we can consider that multiple alternatives are possible, we can also understand our reality more comprehensively and deeply, especially in relation to other possible realities.

If not all alternatives are—or would be—possible in our universe, then one possible way to describe reality would be the multiverse theory: all initial conditions could thus be realized in their own universe, or all possible events that could ever occur might each form their own universe. At least this latter proposal may be impossible to prove correct, and so I will not focus on it in depth in this text. The second option—that multiple multiverses might exist, though not one for every possible alternative when all of time, existence, and potential are considered—could perhaps be assumed valid if we made observations in our current universe that are best explained by the idea that other universes are interacting with ours, even if only indirectly. Still, definitive knowledge of other universes may reasonably be considered difficult to attain.

However, if everything were possible at the most fundamental level—which is the perspective I have chosen to primarily follow in this text—then the question arises again: does reality necessarily have to be exactly the way it is? Is this the only possible option, or are there others—and if there are, then why is reality precisely the way it is?

There is not much that we humans can know with absolute certainty based on our own experience. One such thing, however, is what I have already mentioned: we experience reality in only one way, fundamentally. In some fundamental sense, for example, two contradictory events cannot occur at the same time—or multiple different events, if they concern the action of the same unit. We experience only one of these event-options and its realization. In my view, it is reasonable to assume that all people in the world share this same experience of coherent sequences of events. We may, however, also consider the alternative: could a single act produce two different results or effects for the same simultaneous action of a unit? And what would follow from this? An alternative or complementary model could be that the actions and their consequences of a single unit differ across different temporal contexts in relation to the whole.

In any case, I think that when we first examine reality on its most fundamental or simplest level, all possible outcomes of events must be possible and open. At this point, I turn for the first time to insights from modern science by asking: what does current science say about this idea? This notion is known in quantum physics among some researchers as superposition—that is, a state in which all possible outcomes exist in a certain sense, until an observation or some other mechanism occurs that effectively selects the realized alternative. According to this particular interpretation—which I choose to follow here—my requirement for the existence of all possibilities is thus fulfilled.

Quantum mechanics more deeply describes a reality in which fundamental particles are not in predetermined states, but in superposition with respect to all possible states until they are observed or interact with their environment. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, measurement collapses the superposition into a single definite state, whereas the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) suggests that all possible outcomes occur in separate, parallel realities.

From the perspective of Coherent Emergentism, these interpretations imply that reality does not follow a single, linear, deterministic path, but explores multiple possibilities, many of which influence the development of emergent complexity. Richard Feynman’s path integral formulation supports this idea by showing that quantum systems explore all possible paths before settling into the observed outcome. This principle supports the idea that multiple realities exist at the quantum level before coherence becomes established at the classical scale.

If every possible quantum event can theoretically occur, how does reality still select which possibilities are realized?

Different alternatives have been proposed for this:

•Many-worlds interpretation: all possible outcomes occur in separate universes.

•Copenhagen interpretation: only one possibility is realized upon observation.

•Pilot-wave theory: all possibilities influence reality through the wave function.

•Objective collapse theory: quantum state collapse occurs spontaneously over time.

According to Coherent Emergentism—and I will return to this in greater depth later—only those possibilities that support a consistent and self-sustaining reality persist, starting from the quantum level and continuing into larger structures, within which the number of new coherent developmental paths continually decreases (this is what explains the predictability of macroscopic physics). This process selects functional interactions from among the quantum realm’s possibilities.

From the perspective of Coherent Emergentism, superposition is not merely a peculiar feature of quantum mechanics but an expression of a general structural principle of reality. The superposed state represents a phase in which multiple possible structures remain open—unordered, unconnected, and lacking a clear relationship to the broader whole. In such a state, coherence has not yet emerged.

When the superposition ”collapses” into a single state, this need not be interpreted as a random choice, but as a process in which one of the possible options locks into a broader coherent structure. This so-called locking of coherence means that the state which best fits the existing order—or is capable of maintaining and reinforcing it—becomes permanent. The resolution of superposition is thus a selection guided by the principle of coherence, not mere chance.

This interpretation makes superposition an understandable part of the coherent formation of reality. Coherence does not manifest only in large systems but also governs which possible states become realized in individual events. Thus, quantum uncertainty can be seen as aligned with the deeper structure of reality, in which only those states persist that can coherently integrate into the existing whole.

Quantum entanglement, in turn, is a phenomenon in quantum mechanics in which the states of two or more particles are interconnected such that the measurement outcome of one particle affects the state of the other—regardless of how far apart they are. For example: if two particles are entangled and the spin of one is measured as ”up,” the other’s spin is automatically set to ”down,” even if the particles are on opposite sides of the galaxy. This has puzzled physicists for decades, as it appears to violate classical notions of locality and cause-effect relationships.

Coherent Emergentism offers a new and intuitively understandable interpretation of this phenomenon. According to it, entanglement is not a ”mysterious influence at a distance,” but a consequence of the non-local structure of coherence. Entangled particles form a unified, coherent whole, in which the states of the individual parts are not independent but structurally bound to the same emergent order.

Within this framework, entanglement can be understood as follows:

•Entangled particles are not two separate units, but different parts of a single coherent structure that may be physically distant yet retain an internal connection.

•When one particle is measured, it does not change the other’s state as if ”signaling” it, but rather reveals the structural configuration that was already part of the shared coherent system.

•Thus, measurement is not an influence, but a local manifestation of a structural whole.

This interpretation eliminates the need to assume superluminal communication or a separate mechanism for immediate influence upon measurement. In Coherent Emergentism, coherence is not bound by locality, but can form non-local structures that persist until disturbed.

The collapse of entanglement can then be understood as the breakdown of coherence: when a system interacts with its environment, its internal coherence disintegrates and the particles’ states become separate. This process is known as decoherence, and it marks the transition from a coherent quantum state to a classical state in which measurement outcomes are no longer structurally bound to one another.

Coherent Emergentism thus explains entanglement in a way that is neither random nor supernatural, but as a natural expression of the fact that the coherence of reality can extend across space and maintain order between multiple points simultaneously.

In this light, entanglement is a clear example of how deeper principles of coherence guide the structure of reality—even in quantum-level phenomena—and how reality does not consist of isolated, discrete parts, but of interconnected wholes that merely appear fragmented to us.

If we accept the idea, based on the above, that all possibilities must initially be open, this may also offer an answer to why anything exists at all. In my view, something exists precisely because it is necessary. If something must exist, it can only exist in a way that is internally consistent and coherent—and its emergence could also be understood on that basis. If the existence of reality were not necessary, then, as mentioned above, some external factor or meta-level would be needed to explain its existence. When we examine what we know about reality, its structure, and its function, the postulation of such an external force or agent—that is, assuming it merely so the theory can be built upon that assumption—would be a great leap that alters the very nature of everything we now know, or at least strongly believe we know about reality through science.

What we already know implies that such an assumption is not necessary—reality appears to function without central control or any kind of conscious meta-level, except perhaps with regard to natural laws. This leap in our understanding of reality should therefore be avoided, and instead reality should be explained as simply and minimally as possible. This remains my view regarding my theory and the intention behind it.

Among all possible outcomes and their realization, the option that nothing exists is also included—but this clearly does not occur, as evidenced even by our own experience. We know with certainty that something exists. Thus, the nonexistence of everything can be thought of as just one option among others, but it alone does not manifest, because there are also other alternatives that can be realized. Modern quantum field theory and cosmology confirm that even in a vacuum, there are quantum fluctuations, which I interpret here to mean that ”nothing” cannot exist in the full sense for all of reality—and that even in a vacuum, all possible events remain open. So, something exists, just as ”nothing” also exists as a possibility—but it does not actualize due to its own impossibility. Existence is necessary because ”nothing” is not a stable alternative that could, on its own, be realized. However, among the possible manifestations of reality, the option of nonexistence is included—and thus it, too, is comprehensively accounted for.

I also think that reality and the universe do not, at their core, ”know” theories. Demanding ontological status for a theory would mean postulating some kind of meta-level of reality, which in turn is not far from the demand for a creator or guardian of reality. My own idea, instead, is that reality simply exists because it cannot not exist—but that no external cause determines how it functions or develops from there. Rather, things simply happen—though according to modes of operation that still emerge from necessity. My view here is also that, in an ontological sense, we cannot know the truth about reality, because it takes no position on it—and the question itself is, from its perspective, meaningless and irrelevant. However, reality presumably functions on the basis of certain modes of operation, and I will examine these next.

Understanding Reality from Its Fundamental Level

I believe that we must begin by examining the fundamental mechanisms and level of reality, and that by understanding these, we can then direct our attention level by level toward higher totalities. This mode of thinking can also be considered a consequence of the idea that everything must in some way be connected to everything else. Even then, it is logically sensible to begin by considering the smallest and most fundamental level and proceed from there to larger totalities. The opposite approach does not make sense.

However, this approach does not necessarily mean that the behavior of the largest totalities could ultimately be understood through reduction—that is, by simplifying their behavior down to the principles of operation of the smallest parts of reality. I also believe that by doing this, we might possibly find the answer to whether reality can exist and develop only in the one way we experience it—or whether reality is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic.

In my view, reality is the way it is because its existence is based on the being of its most fundamental level. Its interaction with itself and with what is external to it creates reality on a broader scale. In my opinion, reality cannot coherently and consistently exist—nor can its parts be part of the same whole—unless its nature can be reflected upon at the fundamental level. This level could be said to consist of the fundamental being and behavior of its smallest components—both in terms of their operational principles and in terms of time. Initially, there was only the most basic behavior of the smallest unit, from which everything else developed.

According to this way of thinking, could we then consider that there are also fundamental principles of being and an associated logic that precede everything else? What would these be, if so? I believe it is justified to assume their existence. If we do not, it again becomes difficult to assume that reality is coherent—unless we also assume the existence of some external force, order, or creator of these. My view once again is that reality should be understood by assuming as little as possible, especially anything that could be thought to lie outside of reality. This is therefore my approach to the existence of reality’s fundamental level.

On the Ultimate Rules of Operation

What, then, is the connection between this most fundamental being—or its principles—and the forms of action that exist? Is it necessary that action involves rules, and if so, what can be known about them? My view is that we should assume as few external explanations as possible. For that reason, my idea is that the rules of action must be embedded within the deepest principle of being. If the rules are seen as part of the nature of what exists, that means the fundamental nature of reality itself contains, inherently and by itself, order and laws—or modes of operation—that guide the behavior of entities and phenomena.

At this point, it is also worthwhile to examine this idea as fundamentally as possible, and ontology offers a way to do so. Ontology investigates the concepts of being and existence, as well as the fundamental nature of what exists—such as what kinds of things exist and what kinds of relationships exist between them. In this context, we can see that rules are not separate from what exists, but rather form the structure of being and define how what exists manifests and functions.

Examples related to this include the following: in computer science, ontologies describe concepts and their relationships within a specific domain, enabling efficient processing of information and ensuring that systems work well together. In this context, ontologies are not external rules, but reflect the conceptual structure of the domain in question—which is an inseparable part of its essence.

As a conclusion to this, we can state that this view—where being and its rules are inseparable—emphasizes that existence manifests only on the basis of rules that are embedded in its structure. If we continue with this assumption, then broader reality fundamentally arises from these principles and their multiplication. When we think that action is built into being, we avoid the assumption that rules are externally imposed and instead understand that rules are an essential part of the nature of being.

Connected to what I’ve presented above is also one of the most central ideas of my theory, which I will now elaborate more fully: I believe that such being and the action associated with it cannot be in contradiction with themselves or with each other—at least not entirely—for otherwise nothing could be built upon them, nor could they expand in practice. In summary, at this stage it can be stated that being and the action associated with it are built upon options that are mutually non-contradictory. This principle ensures the coherence of reality and enables structured action both in nature and in human-made systems.

What do we understand about both being and the mechanisms of action associated with it? Based on the earlier foundational principle I presented—that two opposing events cannot exist at the same time—I now more broadly propose that what exists must, at some fundamental level, be non-contradictory. This applies at least to coherent units and the totalities related to them, but also to the rules of action and mechanisms of operation of being, and perhaps at some level to how a single totality interacts with its environment.

Related to non-contradictory being, we can consider that the associated rules are—or at least should be—non-contradictory with one another, at least for the most part. I think this is the case because only such a reality can develop the furthest. Just as coherent being, so too, in my view, coherent rules could be filtered from the most fundamental level of reality. Non-contradictory forms of being and the associated mechanisms or rules of operation form a more coherent totality of reality—and this is the reason why they dominate in reality. Related to this, we can also state the following: we know that the reality we experience is complex.

On the Principles of Being

Next, I will examine more closely what this fundamental level of being could be like. When we consider reality on the most foundational level possible, a central question arises: could the most fundamental principle of being be precisely the distinction between being and non-being? That is, the very reason underlying the existence of all reality? And could everything else emerge from this distinction?

This is also one of the deepest questions in metaphysics: is the difference between existence and non-existence the most fundamental starting point for everything? Could all of reality and its laws—including coherence, emergence, and the rules of nature—arise solely from this distinction? I will now explore this question from physical, mathematical, and metaphysical perspectives and assess whether the difference between being and non-being can truly serve as the foundational premise for everything else.

To begin, the most fundamental principles might be thought to consist of: first, what exists, what does not exist, and their relation to what is possible. A second principle could relate to the relation of the same event to its earlier self and to what differs from itself. A third principle would be a non-identical way of existing compared to the previous, and there could be even an infinite number of such ways. These, in turn, would, as they evolve, form broader totalities. Could this, in turn, exclude some things and make others possible—always on a broader level, even with respect to the largest totalities? Eventually, we would arrive at the relation between all possibilities, both to themselves and to one another.

And when the same event happens multiple times, we might no longer be able to clearly trace a single event—or at least its impact on the whole. Could this last principle be the deepest essence of the principle underlying chaos theory, the indeterministic nature of reality, and emergence? In other words: collective cooperation does not reduce to the action of the unit, and reality as a whole is not ultimately derivable from the simplest operating principles of the lowest level. I will return to this theme later.

Likewise, we might assume that what can exist in a complex way utilizes what already exists and the pathways of that existing. This would also suggest that in complex systems, everything is at least partly built on the same principles and that everything in turn reinforces the coherence of the entire system. This, too, would make it more difficult for the behavior of the whole to be derivable directly from the action of its units. A kind of ”path of being” would form—a path along which we repeatedly travel. This might also suggest that things do not have just one function or reason for existing, but several.

Scientific Perspectives on the Fundamental Level of Being

What does contemporary science say about this line of thought? I begin by considering the relationship between being and its action. In my view, the concept of dualism can also be initially connected to this issue and understood as a term referring, on the one hand, to what exists, and on the other, to how it functions. I have already reflected on this question earlier. If these two are one and the same, then dualism is not needed in any deeper sense. For example, natural laws might function as a meta-level of reality, but even these need not necessarily be true in any real sense, or even exist independently. This would again lead to the conclusion that no dualism is required—if natural laws exist only because they are constructed from the fundamental being of reality.

If this is the case, one could also argue that reality, more broadly, consists on average of the most probable ways of acting and multiplying. This would be a logical conclusion if we assume that the operation of reality is based on fundamental-level mechanisms that occur and repeat themselves independently. This would also eliminate both the need for dualism and for centralized control.

When considering what exists and what does not, the mathematical perspective on the difference between being and non-being—and its logical structure—offers the following: in mathematics and logic, it can be shown that the difference between being and non-being is a necessary concept from which all other rules can be derived. In classical logic (binary logic), reality is based on the principle that all things either are or are not (A ∨ ¬A). Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, in turn, show that in any sufficiently complex system, there must be either incompleteness or a requirement for consistency. This means that if reality is ordered, it must be based on a structure where the difference between being and non-being is the basic premise, but where its internal order remains logically non-contradictory. If something exists, it means that a distinction has been made between being and non-being—one that makes the development of everything else possible.

The metaphysical perspective on the question of whether the difference between being and non-being is the foundation of everything can, in turn, be divided into several viewpoints: is “nothing” a possible state? First of all, philosophers like Parmenides and Heidegger have pondered whether a perfect “nothing” is even logically possible. Parmenides argued that “nothing” cannot exist as a state, because even thinking about it makes it into some sort of entity. If “nothing” cannot exist, it means that being must be the primary state, and that existence is a necessary consequence of the absence of any alternative. This, too, would support the idea that the difference between being and non-being is the foundational starting point for everything else.

From the physical perspective, it is thought in the natural sciences that phenomena have been observed which suggest that the difference between being and non-being operates as a foundational principle of reality. This applies to the origin of the universe and to quantum physics as follows: according to modern physics, the universe may have arisen from quantum-level fluctuations—that is, a state in which there was “nothing” was not truly empty, but contained quantum uncertainty. Quantum field theory shows that perfect vacuum cannot be entirely stable, but that quantum fields spontaneously produce particles and antiparticles, which come into existence and vanish almost instantly. This means that the distinction between being and non-being is an active and ongoing process at the quantum level. This could indicate that existence itself is a result of the fact that “nothing” cannot remain as pure nothingness—thus, the separation between being and non-being gives rise to reality.

Thermodynamics and its instability reflect their relation to non-being in the following way: the second law of thermodynamics states that systems tend toward greater entropy (disorder). If we take non-being as an absolute starting point, it would be a state without energy, information, or order—but in that case, nothing could arise from it. Since reality exists, this suggests that “nothing” is not a stable state. Thus, the boundary between existence and non-existence gives rise to order, because a completely empty state cannot persist. Existence can therefore arise because non-existence cannot be completely stable. The distinction between being and non-being produces a natural asymmetry.

With regard to the emergence of natural laws from the difference between being and non-being, one could say the following: if only coherent and non-contradictory rules can persist and multiply, this may be a direct consequence of the necessity of reality’s existence. This means that all laws that allow for persistence and development emerge because the distinction between being and non-being generates order. This means that natural laws are not arbitrary, but arise from the dialectic between being and non-being.

Thus, natural laws might be regarded without bias and with a rejection of absolutism: they may or may not change, but they are not ”truths” in themselves—they emerge from the workings of the most fundamental reality. It is therefore also unlikely that broad macroscopic laws of physics would change, because they arise from lower-level behavior that always stabilizes at the macroscopic scale. If they were to change drastically, it might require some kind of cosmic consciousness and intention—something difficult to derive from the quantum level.

In connection with all this, it has also been observed that there are many dichotomies in reality—perhaps precisely because the most fundamental questions are resolved in such terms. Information theory and emergence offer related insight: from an information-theoretical perspective, the distinction between being and non-being corresponds to binary logic, in which zero (0) and one (1) form the foundation of all information. Every system that contains information is based on the difference between existence and non-existence. For this reason, every computational process, every quantum state measurement, and every observation is based on the fact that something either is or is not. This means that distinguishing between being and non-being is necessary for both reality and consciousness, because without it no structured system could arise.

Being and Non-Being

According to my theory, the most fundamental level of reality consists not of a binary distinction between being and non-being, but of the difference between coherent and incoherent. It is possible to think of being and non-being in binary terms, but being can nonetheless take on all coherent forms—that is, more than just a single alternative of being. Non-being, in turn, would be equivalent to incoherence.

This distinction I have presented also appears in the difference between ordinary computers—which operate in binary—and more complex quantum computers, whose functioning nevertheless depends on coherence. From this, too, it follows that being is not binary but spectral: there are many ways of being, as long as they are coherent. In that case, non-being simply means structures or states that are not coherent, and therefore do not persist or affect other structures or states.

It can also be suggested that forces of reality, such as gravity, also exist—even though not in the form of matter—and that they can take on a material form only through coherence. This, too, supports the view expressed in the previous sentences: the most fundamental level of reality does not consist of being and non-being, because this does not offer an answer, for example, to how natural forces exist in reality. Instead, they exist, even though not at the level of matter. Only through coherence does material being arise. In a broader view, being itself does not necessarily mean materiality, but the capacity for effect and persistence within a coherent system. Natural forces are coherent mechanisms of influence that do not require a material carrier, but can manifest materially when they participate in the formation of matter.

This distinguishes essential and functional influence from a purely material ontology. The claim that forces can take material form only through coherence concretizes the fundamental assertion of the theory: there is no separate reality of matter and energy, but a coherent structure enables their unified manifestation. Forces, such as gravity or the electromagnetic field, are existing influences, but they become observable and acquire form only when they participate in a coherent whole (e.g., the effect of mass on the geometry of spacetime or the effect of a field on a charged particle). This view shows that coherence does not merely select what persists but also enables effects to become concrete forms.

In physics, the distinction between being and non-being is thus visible in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and the selection of natural laws. Mathematically and logically, distinguishing between being and non-being forms the basis of all rule systems, because contradictory systems cannot be stable. Metaphysically, being must be the primary state, because complete ”non-being” cannot exist.

How does all of this relate to and extend my theory of Coherent Emergentism? My theory further proposes that what exists is internally coherent—not only in terms of its structure, but above all, in terms of its principles of operation. Thus, only that which can operate in relation to itself and its environment can exist in reality in more than a merely potential form. Reality—and above all, matter—therefore consists of what is coherent and non-contradictory in relation to the rest (those more coherent in relation to their surroundings, for example, always occupy more space in reality, because they are better able to persist and multiply), but above all, in relation to themselves. If some alternative possibility lacks this, it cannot be realized—due to its own impossibility and contradictions.

In the initial situation, everything is therefore, according to my theory, possible at the quantum level. This defines the fundamental level of reality’s functioning, but only those possibilities that do not destroy themselves or fall apart by themselves can expand and multiply. This effectively creates a filter for reality—one that automatically produces order and repeatability. Thus, reality consists of being and mechanisms associated with being that are inherently non-contradictory. The laws of nature could be said to arise fundamentally in this way, although there may be other alternatives to this as well. Such an idea might also eliminate the need for natural laws in the sense in which we currently understand them.

Could it be, in an extended sense, that all emergence and even consciousness as manifested in reality are based on this principle I have presented—if it is applied more broadly? Could the relationship between being and non-being generate emergent phenomena that are more than the sum of their parts and that appear as coherent wholes without internal contradictions? Accordingly, it can be proposed that consciousness could be understood as an emergent phenomenon that arises from internal order and non-contradiction within a system. Thought—and thinking itself—are forms of differentiating between being and non-being. Consciousness emerges as it differentiates between perceptions and forms new meanings based on them. This means that consciousness is not merely an emergent phenomenon within a biological system—it may, in fact, result from the fundamental structure of reality.

Another key insight related to the development of Coherent Emergentism is this: what exists is not necessarily in every respect identical with how it functions, and even small differences in wholes can lead to different operational mechanisms and possibilities. Existence ultimately refers to the fundamental components of reality: quantum fields, particles, spacetime, and energy. Function, in turn, refers to the rules, constraints, and interactions that shape the behavior of these components and give rise to emergent phenomena.

This distinction I presented is observable across several fields of science:

•In physics: Quantum mechanics shows that all possible states exist in superposition, but decoherence and observation determine which states manifest in measurable reality. The wave function contains all possibilities, but as a result of measurement—or environmental coupling—classical reality emerges.

•In biology: DNA molecules are stable structures, but their function depends on the context of the cell, regulatory mechanisms, and environmental inputs. Gene expression follows complex patterns based not only on genetic material but also on epigenetic regulation and feedback mechanisms.

•In consciousness: Neurons and synapses are physical entities, but consciousness arises from their dynamic interaction across multiple levels: synaptic impulses, neural network oscillations, and integration between networks together produce the experience of consciousness.

Thus, Coherent Emergentism is strengthened by acknowledging that mere existence does not determine action—instead, action is an emergent property that arises from the interaction of lower-level components. A central idea related to this is again that the behavior of the whole cannot always be derived from the behavior of the individual unit. This is supported, for example, by the fact that the wetness of water cannot be derived from individual water molecules, nor can the movements of hurricanes be derived from their individual elements, or the movements of a flock of birds from the motion of a single bird (a flock of birds can also be thought to stay together due to their mutual coherence). Wetness is not a property of a single molecule, but an emergent phenomenon that arises from the collective organization and interaction of water molecules with each other and with their environment. A hurricane, in turn, is an example of dynamic emergence, in which a complex structure and motion arise from simple components without external guidance.

More on Coherent Rules

Can the theory of Coherent Emergentism be extended even more broadly to include the idea that only mutually coherent rules give rise to self-replicating reality—and that therefore such rules are automatically selected for by the system itself? It can be proposed that this idea combines emergence, natural laws, and self-organization. I will examine this question from physical, mathematical, and philosophical perspectives—as well as whether this principle could serve as the foundation of all reality.

From a philosophical standpoint, in answer to the question of whether this principle of non-contradiction is a natural one for reality, we can suggest the following:

1. If something is not coherent, it cannot persist in existence over the long term.

2.If something cannot replicate or reproduce, it disappears over time.

3.Therefore, the laws and structures we observe in nature are precisely those that are both coherent and self-replicating.

4.Emergence is thus not random, but the result of this selection process.

These ideas also relate to the anthropic principle: we observe the laws of nature as they are because only they allow for complexity and the existence of observers. In this sense, the nature of reality could be seen as a kind of circularity—something I have already written about earlier. But this circularity, in my view, should not be seen as a justification: reality does not exist so that consciousness can experience it.

In physics, we also know of phenomena in which certain laws and orders appear to select themselves, because they are stable and self-replicating. If coherent rules enable systems that are self-replicating and self-sustaining, then they can naturally be selected without external guidance. In quantum and particle physics, the phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking is known, where certain natural laws select themselves based on the principle of stability. For example, in the Higgs mechanism, the vacuum is not perfectly symmetric, but certain fields acquire mass, which leads to the stable existence of matter. Likewise, in the post–Big Bang universe, certain forces and particle properties became selected because they allow for the formation of stable and enduring structures. This supports the idea that natural laws and rules of interaction are not random but arise because only coherent and replicable laws can endure.

In complex systems theory, the phenomenon of self-organization is recognized, in which complex systems spontaneously form coherence because only certain states allow for continuous and stable development. For instance, life evolved from certain molecules because only those allowed for self-replication (DNA/RNA). Furthermore, in phase transitions, certain states of matter become stable because they are thermodynamically favored under given conditions. This supports the idea that only coherent rules persist and are self-selected, because incoherent structures are neither durable nor replicable. This can be connected again to my theory as follows: incoherent rules cannot create anything, and because the rules of being are embedded in being itself, existence is a continuous selection between being and non-being—of which the latter does not manifest due to its own impossibility.

Can this also be extended to the mathematical perspective? Can the selection of coherent rules be a general mathematical principle? Mathematically, it can be shown that in all systems that contain self-replicating and repetitive structures, only coherent rules can persist. In chaotic systems, small incoherences multiply rapidly, meaning that only rules that produce stability can endure over time. For example, in climate systems, unstable states vanish quickly, and only certain established weather patterns are possible. This supports the idea that incoherent rules do not persist long but disappear from the system on their own.

In computer science, it has also been observed that only certain mathematical rules can generate self-replicating information. In algorithmic complexity theory, it has been found that only those rules capable of building coherent structures persist over time. This is evident, for example, in cellular automata, where some rules produce stable structures and others lead only to chaotic dissolution. These examples suggest that replication and persistence always require coherence.

The ideas I’ve presented also relate to ontological emergence, in which higher-level rules are not separate but are selected because they enable coherent functioning on lower levels. Are coherent rules then inevitable? The answer to this question might be: could it be possible for a universe to be incoherent and still exist? If so, it would mean that all phenomena would be chaotic and unstable, and nothing durable could arise. This implies that organized reality cannot be incoherent, because it would not persist over time. Therefore, emergence and the order of nature are not arbitrary, but arise naturally, because only they can endure. This answer also fits my approach in that it does not require any external explanation for the development of reality. Otherwise, how could different parts of reality be part of the same reality if they were, in an absolute sense, in contradiction with each other?

In my view, nothing coherent or greater than itself can emerge from internally contradictory principles or behavior. This is the most fundamental position of my theory. If it does not apply to the fundamental mechanisms of being, then it at least applies to the rules of being. Still, it remains ultimately an open question whether the fundamental nature of reality is its rules of action, its being—or both. This, of course, may never be definitively provable in either direction.

Perhaps complexity as a whole ultimately also arises from being and non-being, just like a computer’s binary system or a life simulation. The whole would thus be complex only from that perspective and starting point. However, it may not be necessary to require coherence. It might be enough for the rules to be coherent in some way—but even that may not be strictly required. Perhaps it is sufficient that there are rules and a possible whole based on them. However, the rules must be mutually non-contradictory. Likewise, any whole that does not function, develop, or reproduce must eventually dissolve. In that case, the requirement of coherence would guide reality in a broader evolutionary sense as well—and possibly even apply to inanimate matter. The problem, however, is that a whole cannot fully govern its units, nor the units themselves in relation to the whole, and this inevitably results in problems and incoherence on some level.

Further Reflection on the Necessity of Coherent Rules

Can we consider even more precisely that coherent rules are also filtered through the requirement of non-contradiction at the most fundamental level? This question concerns the deepest structure of reality, the origin of natural laws, and the grounding of emergence in logical coherence. I will examine this issue from logical, physical, and metaphysical perspectives, and evaluate whether the requirement of non-contradiction can serve as a fundamental selection criterion for the persistence of coherent rules.

In logic and mathematics, non-contradiction is the foundation of all functional systems. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems show that in any sufficiently complex system, there is either incompleteness or a requirement for consistency, but a contradictory system collapses immediately, as it allows for the proof of any claim (that is, trivialism). This means that if a system of rules is entirely contradictory, it cannot be stable or produce a coherent reality. From this, it follows that only non-contradictory systems can continue to exist and produce ordered structure. On the level of logic, this supports the idea that coherent rules are naturally selected because only they can form organized and sustainable systems. Incoherent rules collapse either due to internal contradictions or because they cannot sustain a replicable reality.

What, then, is the metaphysical perspective on this question: is non-contradiction a prerequisite for all existence? Philosophically, one can ask whether non-contradiction is a necessary condition for being. In response, we might say: if all possible rules were allowed, that would also include contradictory ones. If contradictory rules could persist, they would create logically impossible states—such as things that both exist and do not exist at the same time. This would mean that reality could have no consistent order, because any rule could simultaneously apply and not apply. If we accept that the world contains order and cause-effect relationships, this in itself implies that only non-contradictory rules can occur in reality. From this it follows that coherent rules are not just selected by default—they are the only kinds of rules that can exist in the long run. This could mean that everything we observe exists because it is coherent—and everything incoherent either collapses or never appears in reality.

The law of non-contradiction also broadly supports this view: according to Aristotle, the law of non-contradiction means that the same thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same respect. This principle is an essential part of his metaphysics and ontology. Parmenides, in turn, argued that being must be affirmed and non-being denied, emphasizing the distinction between being and non-being. He stated: ”Being is, and nothing is not,” which means that being exists, but non-being does not.

What, then, is the physical perspective on this approach, which considers non-contradiction and the selection of natural laws? In the natural sciences, we can observe the natural selection of rules in which only coherent and non-contradictory structures can persist. The stability of physical laws can be explained as follows: the laws of our universe appear to be finely tuned—that is, they allow for the formation of order (e.g., gravity, electromagnetic forces). If natural laws were internally contradictory, they could not produce a stable universe. For example, if the law of conservation of energy were not valid, the universe could descend into chaos. Only coherent natural laws can give rise to and sustain complex systems such as atoms, planets, and life.

Spontaneous symmetry breaking and the apparent selection of physical constants also illustrate the following: after the Big Bang, the universe adopted certain regularities that allowed for the emergence of stable structures (for example, the separation of quantum chromodynamics and electroweak interaction). This suggests that incoherent rules effectively disappear, because they do not lead to an ordered world. Based on these observations, physics supports the idea that only non-contradictory and coherent rules can be naturally selected—because contradictory rules would lead to the structural collapse of the universe.

Is the automatic selection of coherent rules the foundation of everything, then? Yes—scientifically, mathematically, and philosophically—it is justifiable to say that only coherent rules can persist and replicate in reality. This means that the emergence of nature is not random, but the result of a natural selection process, in which only stable and replicable structures can endure. If a rule is not coherent, it either leads to chaotic collapse or disappears from the system. Therefore, we can expect that all emergent phenomena we observe follow a certain order and coherence.

This could be the fundamental principle of Coherent Emergentism:

•All self-replicating reality exists because only coherent rules can persist and replicate.

•This means that the universe functions as a self-organizing system in which only coherent structures can develop and remain.

•Emergence is not random but the result of the fact that only coherence produces long-lasting and organized structures.

This would be a foundational view of reality in which physics, complexity theory, and philosophical Coherent Emergentism are integrated into a unified framework.

What might the answer then be to the question: are non-contradictory rules the only possibility? It might be this: mathematically, only non-contradictory systems can be stable and produce consistent reality. In physics, natural laws seem to be selected such that only stable and self-sustaining (coherent) rules remain in existence. Metaphysically, a contradictory system would be illogical and could not exist, because it would contain simultaneously opposing truths.

If, in contrast, all possibilities are open in reality—but only the possible becomes actual—this could also eliminate the need for the multiverse: reality would already contain all that is possible, and nothing coherent and broadly existent could exist if its rules or structure were otherwise. If other multiverses existed that operated under different rules, they could not develop coherence. The only multiverses that could exist would be ones similar to our reality in both structure and principle.

Reality could, through these consistent quantum-level events, evolve toward increasing complexity even in relation to its individual parts—without the need for external guidance—eventually reaching life and consciousness. Under certain conditions, systems that optimize information processing, such as the brain, would develop the ability to predict and model reality. This modeling would, in turn, give rise to the experience of consciousness, because it is an efficient way of interpreting and reacting to the environment. Thus, consciousness would not be a meta-level, but an emergent process that arises when information systems become sufficiently complex.

This theory can therefore be broadly summarized as follows: reality is not a static set of rules, but a dynamic web that selects itself from among non-contradictory possibilities. It requires no external cause or meta-level—it simply functions as it can function, without destroying itself or ceasing to be. Something exists because it must—of all possibilities, “nothing” is only one, but it cannot coherently replicate itself, and so those alternatives that can dominate reality. Reality is thus the cause of itself, because only those principles that do not lead to contradiction can persist and evolve.

As it continues to evolve, however, being is constantly in contact with the possibility of non-being—and this, for example, gives rise to incoherence. Perhaps the emergence of emergence itself is related to this—when what exists reacts to nonexistence. In addition to non-being, all alternative forms of existence are also to some extent possible, and their realization is also explained by quantum uncertainty. This would also mean that statistically rare events do sometimes occur, which in turn supports the observation that reality is complex and contains many different parts.

Even More Deeply on Rules

Philosophically, the nature of emergent rules raises additional questions: Are emergent rules necessary? Or could a system contain multiple possible emergent rules depending on its initial conditions? What does it mean that emergent rules are not reducible to their initial state? Is this merely a matter of computational complexity, or is there something genuinely new in them? Can emergent rules be contradictory? Can there be rules on different levels that appear to contradict each other but are actually just different perspectives on the same phenomenon?

One way to approach this is through the concept of supervenience: emergent properties depend on the micro-level, but they cannot be explained solely in terms of it. This means that emergent laws cannot be entirely arbitrary—they must be compatible with lower-level reality, while still being independent systemic rules at a higher level.

In the realm of rules, coherence might also function in such a way that only coherent formations emerge from the perspective of the rules themselves. The question of whether these formations must necessarily have a determined relation to the rules is an interesting one. Must all formations necessarily be coherent with the rules at all times? It would be interesting if this were not always the case. This might also potentially explain the emergence of consciousness. On the other hand, it might be argued that this is not fundamentally possible—or that it’s simply a matter of perspective.

So, do emergent rules always have to be non-contradictory? A short answer might be: not necessarily—but they cannot be logically self-negating. Regarding contradictions between different levels, the following can be said:

•Quantum physics vs. classical physics: In the quantum world, particles can be in superposition (in several states at once), but at the classical level, this no longer manifests. The rules of the quantum world and the macro world appear contradictory, but they are not logically contradictory—they apply at different levels.

•Biology and chemistry: In living cells, biological rules such as metabolism and homeostasis appear, but these rules do not directly reduce to chemical laws. Still, they are not logically contradictory, even though there may be non-intuitive connections between them.

•Psychology and neuroscience: Human behavior can be explained through neurological mechanisms, but psychology may use an entirely different set of explanations, such as personality, motivations, and social environment. These levels may seem contradictory (e.g., determinism vs. free will), but they are not necessarily logically contradictory—they may simply describe the same phenomenon at different levels of granularity.

The explanatory power of my theory is further enhanced by the idea that not everything that exists in reality is necessarily fully coherent in all its properties or in its relationship to the external. If this were the case, we would have to assume that only one kind of thing or structure exists—or only a very limited number. From the idea that all possible events must be possible at some level, we can derive the following: since this characteristic remains present—at least in some form—even in later, larger and more developed totalities, they may evolve differently and also partially contradictorily. This would naturally explain the richness and diversity of reality. Coherent Emergentism, therefore, must also acknowledge that not all structure is perfectly consistent.

Partial inconsistency, then, means local inconsistencies that do not disrupt the overall structure, but rather increase the potential for emergent complexity. This principle is reflected in many ways:

•Quantum decoherence: Although quantum systems exist in superposition, their interaction with the environment causes decoherence, which leads to classical, well-defined states. This process filters out incoherent possibilities and ensures that macroscopic reality remains consistent.

•Biological adaptability: The biological world benefits from partial inconsistency. DNA mutations, stochastic gene expression, and unpredictable neural impulses introduce randomness, which supports adaptation and evolution.

•Cognitive systems: The human brain does not operate as a fully synchronized machine. Neural networks balance at the edge of chaos, combining structural order with randomness—enabling flexibility, creativity, and problem-solving.

Thus, reality does not arise from perfect consistency but from the interaction between stability and dynamic inconsistency.

Local vs. Global Consistency

It can therefore be proposed that emergent rules may be locally inconsistent, but must not violate the global coherence of the entire system.

•For example, economic systems may contain both inflation and deflation, and the effects of these rules depend on the state of the economy.

•In an ecosystem, local competition between species may appear contradictory, yet at the systemic level, balance can be preserved.

•In quantum field theory, phenomena are described differently depending on the scale, but the coherence of the theory remains intact.

This suggests that emergent rules may include paradoxes or features that seem contradictory, but the system as a whole must remain logically coherent in order to remain stable.

A conclusion related to what I have presented above could be the following:

•The nature of emergent rules is dynamic and system-dependent. They may be physical laws, statistical models, or adaptive mechanisms, but they cannot be reduced solely to micro-level events.

•Rules may be locally inconsistent but not globally contradictory. Different levels may contain rule sets that seem incompatible, but the whole must remain logically coherent for the system to function.

•Emergent rules may be hierarchical. Certain laws may apply only at specific levels of complexity and cannot be applied to other levels without modification.

The final conclusion related to what I’ve presented is this:

•Emergent rules are not arbitrary—they follow from the coherence of the system.

•They may appear contradictory at different levels, but the whole remains unified.

•This allows for complexity without breaking the unity of nature.

This, in turn, could lead to the idea that the operation of the whole cannot be fully reduced to the operation of its parts. This is supported from several directions:

•Mathematically and computationally: The behavior of complex systems cannot be predicted based on their parts alone; higher levels of explanation are required.

•In physics and biology: Macroscopic phenomena (climate, life, consciousness) exhibit regularities that cannot be directly derived from micro-level descriptions.

•Causal influence: Higher-level phenomena can feed back and affect lower-level components, demonstrating that the higher level is not just a consequence but also an independent actor.

•Ontological and logical justification: The world is not merely the sum of elementary particles, but consists of differentiated functional levels that are not reducible to their initial states.

From the perspective of emergence, it can therefore be thought that the distinction between being and non-being enables the emergence of new properties and structures that are not directly reducible to the properties of their parts. This emergence happens coherently and without internal contradictions, making possible the development of complex systems such as life and consciousness.

If natural laws—or more accurately, the mechanisms of reality—also arise fundamentally from non-contradictory quantum-level events, it could be argued that these too are embedded within the operation of reality. For this reason, macro-reality and its behavior would be produced in this way. Natural laws, if we wish to speak of them, would thus not be random, nor would they require a designer—they would be self-selected because they allow for the existence of long-lasting, evolving, and replicating structures.

On the Multiverse, Natural Laws, and Determinism

Returning to the idea that all possibilities must be realizable in reality, why then does the reality we experience function in only one particular way? In this context, two possible answers can be proposed when we look back at the origin of our reality. Either there is only this one reality we experience, which emerged by chance from the first quantum-level event, or alternatively, all other possible initial quantum events formed their own distinct realities. The multiverse theory can be seen as supporting this second option. It has also been developed to such an extent that every possible outcome that could ever occur would form its own universe. This latter interpretation, in particular, is impossible to validate scientifically. The first possibility, however, could perhaps be assumed valid if observations were made in our current universe that would be most naturally explained by interaction between our universe and another or others.

These questions also involve the issue of determinism. If the multiverse theory in the latter form is true, then reality is deterministic with respect to all possible events.

However, I myself believe that reality does contain something indeterministic. At the quantum level, according to one interpretation, something indeterministic can be assumed to exist, and therefore something indeterministic should also exist in reality. The formation of macro-reality can be predicted with relative determinism, but when examining the quantum level, we find that certain events occur indeterministically, and so we can propose that reality also contains indeterminacy. If the first model of the multiverse I proposed were true—that is, that other options from the first quantum event manifest in other universes—this would also explain why our universe is the way it is. At the same time, it would suggest that reality does not necessarily have to be like this and would explain why the operating principles and natural laws of reality could be different in other parts of the multiverse. It would mean that each initial alternative creates its own universe, which then operates according to its own principles—but not in a fully deterministic way at the quantum level.

The second alternative, however, could be that only this one reality of ours exists, because the first coherent and thus replicable quantum event was the only possible one—and that this, in turn, created our universe. This single alternative for the emergence of reality would then be the only one that is non-contradictory in terms of its existence, and all other options would be contradictory and therefore “non-existent.” All other alternatives might be contradictory because their interaction with “nothing” would not be non-contradictory. If reality can arise coherently from nothing, it is possible. If it cannot, it is not possible. My theory would likely support this option, considering how it views other forms of reality. Its basic ideas could be naturally extended to this. It may indeed be that reality initially tried many different ways of being and ultimately settled on our way—because it was the only one capable of developing far enough.

The following idea can also be considered true according to my theory: at the most fundamental level, in our reality, matter and energy are ultimately the same, and this is the only non-contradictory way of existing—because all other initial quantum events are contradictory in that this identity does not apply to them. Matter and energy can be one only in one way, and so this is the only possible way the first quantum event could happen. One could also add the idea that only one reality exists at a time, but that it may have emerged from a previous, separate reality and may itself give rise to the next reality or set of realities. In this way, the multiverse theory could also be viewed from this perspective.

Let us also consider another possible model for natural laws: that they are determined on some kind of meta-level. This could be understood through the metaphor of a network, such that in the Big Bang, reality was compressed into an infinitesimal point, and as it expanded, the same modes of operation that were active at the time of the Big Bang continued to function regardless of how large the network later grew. Since reality began as a unified whole, the laws of nature spread throughout the universe and remained unchanged. Even in this case, however, the laws of nature could still be connected to quantum-level principles.

Finally, returning again to the question of determinism: based on my theory, I believe that there is genuine randomness and indeterminacy in reality, as many currently interpret quantum mechanics. At the smallest possible level, everything that can happen may happen, but as events accumulate and form broader totalities, modeling and predicting those totalities becomes, in many ways, deterministic. However, we cannot claim that reality as a whole is deterministic if we accept that this does not hold completely, always, and everywhere.

Summary and Expansion of the Core Ideas of Coherent Emergentism

According to my theory, reality does not distinguish between being and non-being—for if it did, reality would need to be in some way aware of itself. For this reason, my theory also rejects the multiverse theory, at least in its expanded version, in which every new possibility and alternative of action would create a new, distinct universe. If this were the case, reality would need to be even more self-aware—aware of both itself and its own actions.

One can also consider that the question “why?” (for example, “why does something exist?”) cannot be answered without assuming the existence of something—in other words, without answering the question “what?”. My theory responds by combining both questions into a single answer: being is necessary, and it must exist in a coherent manner. Thus, both questions can be answered with one combined response. These two requirements together make it possible for something to exist—and also determine the manner in which that something exists.

On Being and Coherence

Being and coherence are inseparable and causes of one another. The structure of being is the cause of coherence, and it is only possible on the basis of existence. Only coherent structures that are capable of persisting without an external foundation can exist. Being is thus a coherent way of being, and its structure is its cause. Being cannot be conceived without form, nor can form exist without being—they merge into each other both at the quantum level and in metaphysics. Being is equal to a way of being, which is equal to coherence. Coherence is the cause, form, and purpose of being all at once. The condition for being is its way of being, which is coherence.

According to my theory, the fundamental principle of reality is thus the necessity of being: something exists because it is necessary, and because what exists can exist only in a coherent way. This coherence is embedded as necessary being, not as an external cause or requirement. The modes of operation are therefore embedded in the very existence of the smallest unit of reality. This is also not reducible to anything simpler. And if existence and its mode of operation are inseparable, coherence can be seen as the bridge between them: coherence makes it possible for something material and lasting to emerge from being and its way of operating.

It can also be thought that this fundamental irreducibility arises from the interaction between being, non-being, and the alternatives of being. This principle, once further developed, could ultimately be the central reason for the rise and development of emergence more broadly within reality. Since the foundational level is not reducible to its parts, neither is anything built upon it. The logic is already familiar: all developed existence must, on some level, be based on what came before. And since reality is not reducible at its most fundamental level to an initial state, it is natural that this situation is repeated more broadly as well.

It can further be thought that everything that exists is coherent—not as a tautology, but in the sense that interaction and its forces can be incoherent, yet only take the form of matter in a coherent way. And even if something incoherent were momentarily to emerge as a fusion of different functions of reality and forms of being, it would not be able to sustain itself and continue developing.

Coherence can also primarily be thought to arise because the unit associated with it develops, multiplies, and persists better through it. However, it does not function teleologically, but by chance—though it then often persists, evolves, and gives rise to new entities through feedback mechanisms. Thus, coherence can be thought of as a universal criterion for development and persistence. And if, as previously discussed, being and its ways of functioning are inseparable, coherence could then be seen as the bridge between being and its function, producing material activity and existence.

However, my theory indeed carries the risk of falling into too strong a circular argument if coherence is defined only as persistence—that what persists, persists, can be seen as tautological. Yet my theory can respond to this by defining coherence as an emergent principle of optimization that varies according to context. For example, in physics, this coherence could mean symmetry; in biology, it could mean homeostasis. Different systems thus operate in different ways, but what unites them is the logic and factor that only coherent structures endure. Coherence, then, is not a rigid rulebook but a dynamic and universal selection mechanism that shapes the diversity of reality. Next, I will examine this mechanism in a bit more depth.

The Mechanism of Coherence in Coherent Emergentism

Coherent Emergentism rests on the following core idea: only coherent structures persist. In this framework, coherence is not merely a passive property or a descriptive term, but an active mechanism that determines which forms of existence can appear, endure, and develop. Reality is not based on immutable substances or externally imposed laws, but on the continuous selection and stabilization of structures that are internally consistent, energetically sustainable, and informationally compatible. This mechanism of coherence makes it possible for complexity, order, and meaning to emerge from an otherwise chaotic space of possibilities.

In order for any structure—whether physical, informational, biological, or conceptual—to persist in reality, it must meet two fundamental conditions: energetic balance and informational coherence. I will return to both of these themes later on a more general level.

Energetically, the structure must be sustainable. It must be able to maintain itself or exchange energy with its environment without collapsing. A structure that consumes too much energy or disrupts the local energy balance will disintegrate and vanish. In this way, the mechanism of coherence filters out configurations that are not viable from the perspective of energy.

Informationally, the parts of a structure must be non-contradictory and mutually supportive. The parts of a coherent system reinforce each other by forming a mutually consistent and self-supporting pattern. This relational integration makes it possible for the structure to remain meaningful and functional both over time and in interaction. A coherent whole can thus participate in broader reality because its internal logic does not collapse under examination or stress. Informational coherence means that the parts of the structure share, transmit, or maintain mutually compatible information—in other words, their relations are not contradictory but support the system’s functionality and identity.

Energetic and informational compatibility together ensure that only such structures that can maintain their integrity in a changing environment are able to persist. These two aspects are inseparable: energy without informational order leads to chaos, and information without energy remains inert. Coherence means the unification of these into a single functioning principle.

Coherence does not arise all at once but appears through iterative, repeated self-confirmation processes. Systems are in constant interaction, adapting and reorganizing in search of states where their parts settle into mutually reinforcing relationships. These configurations are not predetermined but are found through action and feedback.

When the parts of a system resonate—when their behaviors and structures complement one another rather than conflict—they begin to stabilize each other. This self-reinforcement increases coherence, allowing the system to persist longer, withstand disturbances, and connect to broader networks. The more coherent a structure is, the more likely it is to serve as a foundation for new levels of organization.

This process of emergence based on coherence explains how complexity can be built without external design. At each level, coherent structures form a platform upon which new coherence can emerge: atoms enable molecules, molecules life, life the mind—and all of these stages are built upon internal compatibility and feedback made possible by coherence, not upon arbitrary rules.

Coherence is thus both a filter and a creator: it selects what can persist and enables what can grow.

The Ontological Nature of Coherence

I propose that coherence is best understood as a dynamically stable, relational, and emergent property that arises from the interactions of fundamental entities and governs the persistence of structures across scales.

At the quantum level, coherence emerges when particles in superposition maintain consistent phase relationships, as in entangled states. Decoherence occurs when interactions with the environment disrupt this coherence, selecting stable (coherent) states.

At higher levels, coherence manifests as the stability of complex systems—such as metabolic networks in cells or social structures—where components align to maintain the integrity of the system.

Physical constraints, such as energy minimization or entropy maximization, regulate the conditions under which coherence can emerge, linking it to thermodynamic and information-theoretic principles. By defining coherence as an emergent phenomenon arising from interactions constrained by physical laws, we anchor it in observable processes and avoid tautology.

Coherence is not the cause of existence, but a property that enables persistence and is selected by the dynamics of self-organization. Coherent structures exert downward causation, where emergent properties (e.g., consciousness, societal stability) constrain lower-level components. This is ontologically significant, as coherence mediates the interaction between the different levels of reality.

By defining coherence as an emergent property rather than a necessary cause, we avoid the circular reasoning of ”reality is coherent because it exists.” Coherence arises from relationships of interaction—it is not a pre-given state but one that is selected based on physical constraints.

On Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, according to which we cannot simultaneously know both the position and momentum of a particle with perfect accuracy, may also suggest that being and its mode of being are, at the most fundamental level, inseparable—and derivable from this principle. Based on this, we can further propose that these aspects are not reducible. One might also argue that if we try to separate being and its way of being into distinct concepts, we lose the coherence that makes them real and enduring.

Being and its associated mode of operation thus form a coherent, emergent whole that cannot be reduced without loss of structure and meaning. Just as at the quantum level, position and momentum do not manifest independently of each other, the fundamental structures of reality do not manifest without internal coherence, in which being and its dynamics are inseparable. The irreducibility implied by Heisenberg’s principle can perhaps be seen to repeat itself later on—and to be the key reason that leads to irreducibility and emergence even in broader and more developed systems.

This would also apply to human consciousness. Since it is composed of the same matter and operational mechanisms as the rest of reality, it too operates according to the same fundamental modes. It can also be proposed that the anthropic principle results from the fact that immaterial reality and consciousness are ultimately based on the same substance and, in part, on its principles of operation. In addition, consciousness models reality—and for this reason as well, we can assume there is much in common between them: they are like mirror images of one another, even though they are not created as causes, purposes, or justifications of one another.

On Emergence

Emergence, more broadly understood, consists of a new form of coherence that arises as complexity increases and with it the growing interdependence of units. Emergence is therefore a new, system-level manifestation of coherence that arises when units increasingly and more complexly interact. It can also be said that emergence consists of the fact that the same action by a single unit can have different effects across different levels of coherence—but also, and above all, at different points in time. These could be the principles of emergence on all levels of reality, including the most fundamental. A unit thus has multiple effects that vary over time. A single coupling creates a new kind of context in which these effects gain new meaning.

Consciousness is the most advanced form of this coherence, which arises through feedback loops and is thus capable of reflecting on its own totality. Consciousness is therefore a reflective form of coherence. It also enables coherence to function in a complex and changing environment—and this may be the reason for its development. Consciousness arises biologically in the human brain when a certain coherence threshold is met, but from that point onward it becomes inevitable. It is not added or magically appears. Consciousness can also be understood as gradual, temporal fluctuation and variation between the operation of a unit and a whole. This would remove the contradiction between unit and whole, if we consider that a unit’s action affects the whole differently at different times. Thus, one and the same action would not have simultaneous, conflicting effects—which has long been a challenge in understanding emergence.

Reality more broadly could be understood as a rhythmic fluctuation of coherence and emergence. The key to understanding emergence is therefore the temporal differentiation between levels of coherence, not simultaneous overlap. And the fact that the effect of a unit’s action changes depending on the context and coherence. For this reason, emergence is also not reducible. Consciousness is a gradual fluctuation between different levels of coherence—also temporally distinct. Thus, consciousness is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Consciousness, too, fluctuates. This reflection broadly removes the contradiction between the actions of a unit and a whole.

A unit is entirely part of the whole because it is a persistent unit, and the whole is a whole because it maintains the coherence of its units. A unit remains only if it is coherently connected to the whole. The whole persists only if it maintains the connectivity of its units. There is no separateness between them, but mutual continuity: unit and whole are prerequisites for each other in a temporally continuous interaction. This also fulfills the principle of reality I mentioned earlier: that two contradictory events cannot happen at the same time.

On Coherence and Emergence

Because reality can manifest all possible forms of being, these also become actualized within it and give rise to emergence. Emergence is a new level of coherence that arises from the interaction of parts and is thus inherent to the nature of reality. It is fundamentally a transformation of coherence—not merely an increase in complexity. Reality develops in the direction of strengthening and diversifying coherence, but without teleology—that is, without purpose or goal orientation. Because everything that can happen will happen, if given enough time, new levels of coherence and emergence also arise whenever conditions allow enough time for their development.

Coherent structures, in turn, become actualized automatically, because they persist. Coherence enables emergence and gives rise to a new, higher-level coherence. Emergence occurs when interaction between units produces a new level of coherence in which the meanings and consequences of actions are determined by context. It is the structural actualization of coherence and can be understood as a temporal variation—a wave-like fluctuation—between the coherence levels of different wholes and parts. A unit’s action varies according to the level of coherence, which also makes consciousness non-reductive. Emergence is a process—not a static structure.

In reality more broadly, that which is most coherent in relation to its external environment also develops the furthest and occupies the greatest domain—or in other words: it finds a place in reality where it can develop because its relation to the external is both most advantageous and most compatible, allowing it to evolve the most. This idea parallels what we know from economics, particularly market dynamics, but also from evolutionary biology. My theory could also be summarized by saying that it is the Darwinism of inanimate matter.

Strong or Weak Emergentism?

A key position within emergentism, in addition to what has already been discussed, is whether one supports weak or strong emergentism. In weak emergentism, it is assumed that emergent phenomena—or the behavior of the whole—can in principle be reduced to its parts and explained based on their interactions, although this may be practically very difficult or complex.

In contrast, strong emergentism assumes that emergent phenomena cannot even in principle be reduced to the properties of their parts or their interactions—and that these properties are causally efficacious in themselves, meaning they can influence lower levels. Weak emergentism is widely accepted in science, whereas strong emergentism remains controversial.

My own view is a kind of combination of these. I do not believe that emergence gives rise to something entirely new or different from everything else, and I believe that emergence can, at least in part, be understood through reduction—by tracing it to the behavior of its parts. However, I also believe that emergence can give rise to a kind of free functioning of the whole, which can in turn influence the behavior of individual units. Human consciousness is an example of this. In my view, it is reasonable to assume that it has some degree of freedom and that by exercising it, it can influence individual brain cells. This influence is not magical or entirely novel, but it can at least partly be understood. However, because it is at least partly free, its independent action is different from that of the unit.

When trying to understand the mechanisms of emergence, we can again consider the alternative: could it be at least partly explained by the idea that the same action of a unit can lead to different outcomes or effects? What would follow from this? Could we think of this as the mechanism of emergent events—where the action of an individual unit has different effects depending on the whole to which it relates? The emergence of emergence itself could be influenced by whether or not the whole is aware of this overlapping influence. When this is combined with the idea that a unit’s effect varies at different times in relation to different wholes—and thus the level of coherence, and in the case of humans, the level of consciousness, fluctuates—this could explain the functioning of emergent consciousness.

This perspective I’ve presented would thus combine reductionism and emergence, and satisfy the requirements of both—if a unit’s action can influence the whole in multiple ways at different times. Some of that influence could then affect the unit’s later action in a new way—and in this way, emergence would also be fundamentally linked to time.

On Determinism and Time

Before we proceed to examine how my theory extends into the rest of reality, I will highlight its relation to other foundational questions concerning reality. The first of these is the question of determinism.

First of all, one can propose that if reality is fully deterministic, there would be no room or need for emergence—at least in any strong sense—since everything would ultimately be explainable based on the operation of its parts, and there would be no autonomy or freedom at the level of large-scale wholes. However, my view is that this is not a justified position. Still, I will also consider what a fully reductive reality would look like—and I will also examine the opposing perspective.

The question of whether the world is deterministic could, to begin with, be a misguided or improperly formulated question—if we assume that reality is not aware of itself or that there is no meta-level of reality. In that case, things would simply happen. Then the question of determinism might not even be a meaningful question—nor the answer to it. If, at its core, reality also does not distinguish between what exists and the rules of its operation, then the question of determinism is once again unclear.

However, if reality can be said to be deterministic, does the most coherent event from the perspective of the past always occur? If everything were deterministic, why wouldn’t the final state occur immediately? In this context, can we also assume the following: if reality were entirely deterministic, then things would always happen in the same way—at least more strongly than they do now.

What if reality is instead indeterministic? Both deterministic and indeterministic worldviews could also include determinism at the macro level: under both views, the macro level is predictable, but the micro level may still contain indeterminism, if the indeterministic perspective is chosen.

In any case, we could think that reality must be comprehensible—but not necessarily deterministic. What would comprehensibility then mean? Perhaps that there is some form of coherence, or only one way for events to happen—at least when looking at them retrospectively? We do know, at the very least, that this is the case: everything appears coherent when we look backward in time.

The nature of determinism is also deeply related to the question of time. First, the question arises: can reductionism be meaningfully connected to time, or are the two mutually exclusive? And why would time even exist if reality were deterministic?

Regarding time, we can still say that time is ultimately what creates determinism in hindsight. Everything is deterministic when we look into the past—it could not be otherwise, because then reality would not be one coherent whole. But with regard to the present moment and the future, the question remains open. If quantum mechanics, for instance, includes genuine indeterminism, we can reasonably assume that the present and future are indeterministic—and that this is the nature of time. We can also ask: why does the arrow of time—that is, our experience of time always flowing forward—exist, if time is not a real phenomenon and if indeterminism is not a part of it?

If reality does not care how it functions or what it is made of, then the question of determinism takes on a new meaning. If we assume only the existence of coherence, we can say that determinism and indeterminism in reality consist of the unfolding of coherence: part of it is indeterministic, but not all. Thus, reality could be described as coherent indeterminism. Indeterminism exists, especially at the smallest level of reality—but not total randomness. Coherence, to some extent, determines the course of reality—and at the macro level, this happens deterministically.

On Time

Time can also be understood as the rhythmic fluctuation of coherence—not as an independent measurement framework, but as a change in coherence. There is no objective time, but rather each whole has its own flow and fluctuation of coherence, which determines the passage of time. This internal coherence-based development is a kind of internal time. The arrow of time arises from the fact that what has formed based on coherence can no longer return to its original state. Measurable time, in turn, is uniform because the rhythm of coherence is stable in a stable measurement system. The measurement of time thus reflects the stable rhythm of coherence—not objective time. Time may be locally stable, but not absolute, because every system has its own internal time.

The coherence process slows down in motion, and time also ceases when motion reaches the speed of light. Gravity, for example, can also influence the development of coherence and thus the passage of time. When activity slows down (due to motion, gravity, entropy, energy state, or complexity, for example), time also slows down—because the concept of time is precisely the rhythm of activity. It can also be considered that for any system, only the interaction of its parts matters—not any external time reference. This idea, again minimizing the influence of external factors, supports my approach.

When the rhythm of operation between parts changes, the whole also changes such that it becomes tempting to describe it based on external time—even though in reality, only internal activity is changing. The more slowly coherent internal activity progresses, the longer the system maintains its existence, as its temporal duration increases. This provides an emergentist explanation for why time appears to slow down (or even stop) in systems moving at the speed of light: their internal rate of change approaches zero, and their observed lifespan increases in relation to slower systems. Time is, however, also relative to the external. The variation in internal coherence explains why human beings experience the passage of time differently—as coherence fluctuates within the human body and brain.

According to my theory, then, there is no objective time, but there is a general reference frame: the stable rhythm of coherence, to which all other rhythms are related—because this stable rhythm is what most commonly prevails. In this context, coherence functions neutrally, without being in motion or under the strong influence of other forces. This reference frame is the persistence of coherence’s rhythm—not objective time. Reality develops temporally through interaction, because coherences form a dynamic whole in which there is no single universal time, but all coherences synchronize with each other. Reality thus becomes a kind of stage, where different units, wholes, and their activity in time take place—without this stage creating time in any external sense.

Therefore: time is not an external, shared measure, but temporal relationships exist because coherence is transmitted through interactions—and for this reason, the whole—reality—appears as a temporally evolving structure, even though it is not based on any universal background clock. We can speak of time synchronization, which does not result from a single time but from the emergence of commensurable projections between multiple times through interaction. Temporality is not a universal background framework, but the internal rhythm of each being—developing in interaction with the internal rhythms of others. These rhythms do not form a common so-called meta-time, but reality functions as a unified, evolving whole in which all internal temporalities are intertwined through coherence and interaction.

This emergent structure is therefore still not objective time, but a coherent horizon of internal organization within reality. Even though each system has its own internal time, reality evolves as a whole because these temporalities are connected through interaction processes. Thus, a coherent but non-objective, structural horizon of time—and above all, of events—emerges, where events can synchronize without the existence of any universal meta-time. This whole is a stage, but not a neutral background—it is a developing structure generated by interaction.

According to the general view, time also began with the Big Bang, which challenges the notion of time as a fundamental feature of reality. If time has a starting point, how could it be truly fundamental?

In Coherent Emergentism, this is resolved by redefining time: time is an emergent property of coherence. Time is not a pre-existing dimension but a process that arises where coherent, causally interconnected structures appear. The Big Bang does not mark the beginning of everything, but the moment when reality became sufficiently coherent to enable sustained directionality, causality, and stability.

From this perspective, time begins where coherence begins. What existed, so to speak, before the Big Bang may have been an incoherent state without stable structures or temporal flow. Thus, time is real – but not fundamental in the traditional sense. It is a product of coherence, not a foundation underlying it.

If, on the other hand, time began when the first coherence began, then nothing existed before that—and therefore, there was also no initial cause. This could again avoid the previously mentioned problem of causality, namely the idea that every event is generally thought to have a preceding cause.

Drawing the conclusion that time is not objective also supports my earlier approach of minimizing external assumptions: without objective time, there is no meta-level that would lead to new assumptions and questions. If we assume this, it is also natural to arrive at the approach of my theory. According to my theory, time ends in reality when coherence ends—which again relates to the fact that time does not exist independently.

On Energy and the Origin of Everything

According to my theory, energy and coherence are the only externally given necessities—without them, there would be nothing, and this is impossible to comprehend. It would be far more complex to assume the existence of reality as the product of some external force or agent, as that would require additional external assumptions and a meta-level.

In my theory, energy takes material form only as a result of coherence. The manifestation of energy is thus the occurrence of coherence—a wave-like fluctuation between immaterial and material energy. This raises the question of the origin of energy. Can we say that energy originally emerged from nothing, or has it always existed? And does energy arise simultaneously with coherence, or are they both timeless?

The origin of energy is therefore possibly unclear in any case, but we know that the energy of our reality was created in the Big Bang. In this context, we can consider that even in the vacuum there is energy and events, as we look back to the origin of our reality—and that these took, and still take, material form only in a coherent way. Thus, they arise from nothing, at least in a certain materialistic sense.

Reality requires energy and associated forces to function. The relationship between coherence and energy is this: energy can manifest as matter only in a coherent way, but in the form of pure energy, it is not subject to this constraint—in that case, it exists only immaterially. However, energy is not a meaningful concept in this state, because nothing can arise from it. Energy is therefore not only a force, but also a set of possibilities—and these possibilities are present even in the vacuum, that is, before the moment our universe came into being.

We can also imagine that before our current reality, there was another reality or an origin that emerged from a vacuum. But if we assume the existence of a prior reality, this leads to an infinite chain of thought: what existed before that previous reality? Therefore, an origin is required—one that is self-sufficient: energy that has always existed, at least on the level of potential, and that took material form for the first time in a coherent way.

A related key idea is the following: the state of non-being is logically impossible, because it cannot preserve existence. Existence therefore consists of energy that has taken the form of matter. According to my theory, this occurs constantly through the selection between being and non-being. The coherent manifestation of energy is thus the origin and defining feature of reality’s development. Before coherence, it makes no sense to speak of time, because no development would have taken place to produce coherence. The requirement of coherence sets limits on being: just as one cannot go farther north than the North Pole, it is meaningless to speak of being or time before coherence. Without coherence, there can be no being.

The manifestation of energy and coherence, in turn, drives development forward and multiplies reality. But is this possible without memory of the original act of coherence? If reality remembered its way of functioning, that would again require external assumptions. Therefore, we should instead think that the relationship between being and non-being continuously produces the new—and that this arises on the basis of coherence.

The ongoing union of energy and matter based on coherence could also indicate that reality does not distinguish between material and immaterial forms—which again minimizes external assumptions. If reality cared about what form it takes, it would require a meta-level that is aware of this. Instead, my theory supports the idea of reality as a wave, fluctuating between energy, matter, and various forces, without reality itself being aware of or concerned with this fluctuation.

Energy and time, therefore, are not eternal in the sense that, before the Big Bang, there was only potential and possibility. Energy, time, and coherence began when energy first took on a coherent form. Similarly, time and energy end when coherence ends. Energy still exists, but no longer as a coherently structured form—so it no longer forms reality in the experiential sense. Before our reality, then, there was only potential (energy and coherence as possibilities). Coherence became actualized, energy took form, and both time and reality were born. Coherence then proceeds, multiplies, and builds the universe. When coherence disappears, order is broken down, and energy ceases to express form. Time ends, because there are no more events. What remains is potential, from which a new coherence may possibly once again emerge as a new cycle.

Coherence and Entropy in the Construction of Reality

Coherent Emergentism offers a new way to understand the relationship between entropy and coherence. Entropy is not merely a physical measure of disorder—it reflects the fundamental structure of reality: most events do not lead to the emergence of order, meaning, or lasting structures. This makes incoherence an almost default state into which reality falls when nothing guides it. Most events neither build nor destroy existing order—they remain insignificant. They are not part of broader wholes and leave no trace.

Coherence stands out from this background as a special phenomenon. It is not a random exception, but an active, creative process capable of overcoming the inertia of incoherence—that is, the resistance of matter to change in velocity. Coherence can bind energy and information into structures that endure, evolve, and generate new levels of order. This makes coherence the enabler of order and meaning: without it, there would be no forms of matter, no life, and no consciousness.

From the perspective of Coherent Emergentism, the fundamental dynamics of the universe consist of ongoing interaction between incoherence and coherence. The vast majority of reality is composed of events that do not surpass the threshold of coherence, but it is from this background that coherence can emerge. This makes entropy not merely a destructive force but also the raw material from which coherence becomes possible.

A coherent structure can persist only if it receives an inflow of energy and the resulting disorder is transferred to the environment. Energy functions both as the sustaining force of structure and the producer of disorder. In this way, order is never free: every new coherent structure increases entropy in its surroundings.

Information is central to this dynamic. Coherence can be understood as an increase in information: when previously random events organize, they begin to contain patterns and rules. For example, the formation of a crystal or a vortex signifies the emergence of order within what was previously a chaotic system. Information is not merely abstract—it has a physical dimension. A random message contains high entropy and little information; a structured message contains more information and less entropy.

This perspective connects emergence with the growth of information and the creation of order: life, thought, and memory are examples of states with high information and low entropy. Coherent systems, like DNA or the brain, do not merely preserve information—they also increase it over time, making them dynamic and evolving wholes.

Coherent Emergentism emphasizes that order can arise without conscious design. When the right conditions—such as sufficient energy supply, feedback loops, and critical complexity—are met, systems can self-organize spontaneously. This process does not need to be interpreted as purposeful—it can be seen as a natural outcome of probability structures. Coherence is not a magical exception, but a natural possibility that manifests when conditions allow it—or sometimes even in spite of them.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system increases, but open systems can locally reduce entropy by increasing it in their surroundings. This allows for the formation of coherent structure: order comes at a cost—but it is a cost that can be paid. Coherent Emergentism recognizes these conditions and shows that the emergence of order is not contrary to the laws of physics but part of their broader expression.

Coherence can be measured in many ways: correlation, mutual information, algorithmic complexity, and functional integration are all metrics by which coherent structure can be assessed. For example, quantum computers, which preserve quantum coherence, require specific conditions—such as isolation and error correction—because coherence is highly sensitive to environmental entropy. Similarly, certain biological systems, such as photosynthesis or navigation, may preserve quantum coherence under specific conditions.

From a cosmological perspective, the universe appears to have begun in a highly coherent state, as indicated by the low entropy of the Big Bang. This provided the seed for the formation of galaxies, stars, and life. Inflation, quantum fluctuations, and gravitational collapse are all mechanisms by which coherence has taken hold. Life is one of the most coherent phenomena in the world—it builds and maintains complex structure while dispersing energy and increasing entropy in its environment. The same applies to the mind: the synchronization of neurons produces consciousness, which can be seen as the highest level of coherence.

Coherence, then, is not a disconnected phenomenon but part of the basic structure of nature—just like entropy. They function in interaction: entropy dissolves, coherence constructs. Coherence does not reduce total entropy—it exports it to its surroundings. This makes coherence a sustainably viable phenomenon.

Coherent Emergentism also proposes a new way of classifying events: into those that build coherence, those that destroy it, and those that are meaningless. Most events are meaningless—they neither construct nor destroy, but are like background noise, which coherence can either use or to which it can transfer its entropy. This perspective broadens our understanding of reality: randomness at the micro-level can give rise to order at the macro-level.

If we want to measure coherence in the way we measure entropy, we need shared principles. Coherence can be defined as deviation from statistical independence between parts. When interaction exceeds the noise threshold, correlations and structures emerge. Many critical transitions—like magnetization or the initiation of self-sustaining reactions—can be understood as such thresholds of coherence.

Ultimately, Coherent Emergentism proposes that the story of reality is one of continuous emergence of coherence within the midst of entropy. Order is not an extreme exception, but a natural outcome under the right conditions. This brings a new perspective to humanity as well: we are not an anomaly adrift in chaos, but part of the universe’s tendency to produce coherence—life, meaning, and understanding.

This approach unifies physics, information theory, biology, and philosophy into a single whole, in which coherence rises alongside entropy as a fundamental principle of how reality is built.

On Information

Something can be said or known about reality only by examining the relations between things. Knowledge arises from this network of relations. Although there may be other truths, we can never know them with certainty. Things can affect reality only on the basis of their relations. Truth and knowledge are always relative, and information appears on the basis of these relations.

Information is a distinguishability enabled and maintained by the structure of coherence, and it must be able to have an effect within the system. Coherence is more fundamental than information: it is not a substance, but a structure in which the coherent persistence of differences is manifested. Information is always connected to time, order, and persistence. Without coherence, there can be no enduring order in which information could appear, be transmitted, or have an effect. Therefore, information does not exist without coherence.

On Gravity

Traditionally, gravity has been understood as one of the four fundamental interactions of nature that acts between massive bodies. From the perspective of Coherent Emergentism, however, a different interpretation of the nature of gravity becomes available: not as an independent force, but as a manifestation of an organized structure—arising from deeper, multi-level coherence between layers of reality.

Coherent Emergentism views reality as consisting of layers that are in constant interaction with one another. These layers are not defined so much by discrete particles or fields, but by relationships—that is, by how parts relate to each other to form a whole. In this context, gravity can be seen as a large-scale phenomenon that arises from the deeper interconnection of space and time. Gravity is not an interaction between masses in a fixed space, but an expression of the order and structure of spacetime itself. It emerges when micro-level events (such as quantum processes) organize into a broader spatial and temporal framework of coherence.

Gravity can thus be interpreted as a mechanism that maintains coherence between levels of reality. Local changes—such as the movement of mass and energy—cannot occur randomly, but must conform to the larger whole. In this way, the gravitational field functions as a tool for preserving consistency between quantum-level phenomena and the macroscopic geometry of space. In this view, gravity is not a ”force” in the traditional sense, but an expression of coherence that we perceive as an attraction between masses.

According to Coherent Emergentism, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent property of an ordered totality. Its seemingly force-like behavior results from deeper structural alignments that are reflected in our observable reality. Gravity could thus be understood as a coherence-preserving constraint that ensures local interactions remain in line with the global structure. The attraction between masses would not arise directly, but would be the outcome of feedback mechanisms whose purpose is to maintain structural unity across the system.

Rather than attempting to quantize gravity like other fields, Coherent Emergentism suggests that gravity is already the result of reconciliation at the quantum level—specifically, of quantum processes being organized into a coherent spacetime structure. This might explain why traditional efforts to describe gravity using quantum mechanics have failed: gravity is not a field in the same sense as others, but arises from the preservation of structural order. It is not the opposite of quantum theory, but the outcome of reconciling it at a larger scale.

Cosmologically speaking, the universe began in a highly ordered state, where entropy was low and order was high. Entropy provided the direction of time and the driving force of change. Coherence, in turn, directed that change to form meaningful structures: space, time, forms of matter, and interactions. Gravity is one of those forms—not a separate factor, but an emergent property that makes reality stable and interconnected.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Light of Coherent Emergentism

Coherent Emergentism offers a new perspective from which to reconsider phenomena like dark matter and dark energy—not as manifestations of unknown particles or forces, but as consequences of a deeper, coherence-regulating process operating across the layers of reality. In this framework, gravity itself is not a fundamental force, but an expression of large-scale structural alignment. It functions as a feedback mechanism that maintains coherence between local and global states, ensuring that individual events remain consistent with the overall structure of reality.

Dark Matter as a Manifestation of Structural Coherence

In contemporary physics, dark matter is inferred from discrepancies between the observed rotational behavior of galaxies and the predictions of Newtonian or relativistic gravity. Standard models attribute this anomaly to unseen mass. Coherent Emergentism, however, offers an alternative explanation: the observed excess gravity does not arise from invisible particles, but from the emergent structure of spacetime.

When concentrations of mass and energy form in galaxies, they must settle into coherent relation with the larger geometry of spacetime. Gravity, as a coherence-maintaining mechanism, adapts locally to preserve this compatibility. This means that in regions where visible mass cannot explain observed rotational velocities, additional gravitational effects may emerge from global coherence constraints—manifesting structurally as something like ”tension” or non-local feedback. According to this view, the gravitational field is not determined solely by mass but also by the requirement to preserve structural coherence throughout the system.

This idea echoes existing emergent gravity models, such as Erik Verlinde’s theory, which interprets the effects attributed to dark matter as an elastic response of spacetime to entropy gradients. Coherent Emergentism extends this logic: gravitational anomalies are understood as expressions of coherence across multiple structural layers, and do not require exotic matter to explain them.

Dark Energy as an Expression of Global Coherence Dynamics

Dark energy, which is used to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, can also be reinterpreted within this framework. If the universe evolves toward a state in which coherence across layers—from quantum fluctuations to cosmic geometry—is maximized, then the expansion itself may be an expression of this dynamic process.

As structures form and entropy increases locally, global coherence mechanisms may respond by driving accelerated expansion to stabilize overall coherence in the system. This process would not manifest as a fundamental repulsive force, but as a large-scale feedback mechanism that maintains balance between emergent order and growing disorder.

In this interpretation, so-called vacuum energy is not literally a measure of energy density, but an emergent property of the structural coherence of the vacuum. Gravitational effects attributed to dark energy could thus be understood as consequences of deep coherence-layer dynamics, which guide the global development of spacetime according to its own internal logic.

Conclusion: A Unified Interpretation of the Dark Sector

Coherent Emergentism thus provides a unified framework for interpreting both dark matter and dark energy. Rather than relying on new particles or forces, it suggests that these phenomena are expressions of emergent gravitational behavior, in which gravity acts as a coherence-regulating mechanism. The gravitational field does not merely respond to mass and energy—it actively shapes spacetime geometry to preserve compatibility between micro- and macro-level structures.

These phenomena can therefore be understood as systemic manifestations of coherence across different levels of reality—where gravity maintains structural unity both locally and cosmically. The need to preserve emergent order generates gravitational effects that, from a traditional perspective, appear to require invisible entities. But from the perspective of Coherent Emergentism, they are natural consequences of a reality built from layered coherence.

This interpretation not only questions the necessity of hypothetical forms of matter, but also encourages the development of new gravitational models based on information, structure, and feedback—not merely mass and energy. As such, it offers a promising foundation for both theoretical integration and empirical reconsideration of cosmic phenomena.

The Emergence of Physical Reality Based on the Coherence Filter

In Coherent Emergentism, reality does not, then, arise from externally imposed laws, fixed substances, or abstract meta-levels, but from the selective persistence of coherent structures. This selection principle is here called the coherence filter, and it functions as a universal constraint on all phenomena: only those forms of energy, interaction, and relation that are internally consistent, self-sustaining, and mutually reinforcing are capable of stabilizing and developing. In contrast, incoherent configurations — structures in relation to the positions of elements and the interactional relationship between them — are transient, as they are not capable of binding energy into a lasting form, nor of integrating into broader structures or transmitting influence in a meaningful way. In this sense, coherence functions not only as the basis of emergence but also as an implicit — that is, unspoken — filter on the basis of which the structure of reality is continuously formed.

This principle offers a powerful framework for understanding large-scale physical phenomena, including the emergence of spacetime, gravitational structures, and phenomena such as dark matter. Instead of treating these as foundational starting points, Coherent Emergentism interprets them as consequences of structures that have passed through the coherence filter. They are not externally determined, but result from what coherence permits and requires.

Spacetime as a Product of Coherent Interactions

In traditional physics, spacetime is often seen as a fundamental background: a pre-existing arena in which matter and energy interact. In Coherent Emergentism, this view is turned on its head: spacetime is not a prerequisite for structures, but a structured relation emerging from coherence. The coherence filter selects patterns that are stable, causally organized, and information-preserving. These patterns generate what we interpret as spacetime: a relational structure that enables continuous interaction, directional development, and large-scale integration between systems.

Thus, spacetime is an emergent manifestation of coherence — a field of globally coherent relations that reflects the subsystems’ ability to remain causally synchronized. Its apparent continuity and dimensionality are the result of a feedback-capable, stable emergent structure. Wherever coherence breaks down — for example, in quantum decoherence, gravitational singularities, or at the Planck scale — the structure of spacetime also ceases to be applicable. In this view, time and space are not absolute dimensions, but phenomena dependent on coherence and scale.

Dark Matter as Invisible Coherence

Dark matter is one of the central puzzles of contemporary cosmology: it affects the dynamics of galaxies and cosmic structures through gravity but does not interact electromagnetically, nor emit, reflect, or absorb light. In Coherent Emergentism, dark matter can be interpreted such that it is not a new form of matter, but a manifestation of coherent structure that is not directly observable. Its function may be the stabilization of larger systems through gravitational means — ensuring the coherence of galaxies, clusters, and filaments — without the need for internal excitation that would be visible to our instruments.

In this view, dark matter represents the gravitational trace of coherence, as it does not reduce to ordinary matter, but is not completely separate from it either. It can be understood as a structure without internal thermodynamic activity: as regions where coherence is preserved without disintegrating into radiation or detectable interactions. It is not so-called invisible matter, but the shadow of coherence — a structure that functions systemically but not as a locally measurable entity.

The Laws of Physics as Emergent Constraints

If coherence is the ultimate principle of persistence, then the regularities we recognize as the laws of physics are not predetermined conditions of reality, but the result of systems that have passed through coherence. The laws of physics thus emerge as constraints that have proven coherent across multiple scales: only those models of interaction, symmetries, and conservation laws that enable scalable, feedback-compatible, and causally consistent structures can persist over time. Other alternatives dissolve into incoherence or do not manifest at all.

In this light, the apparent universality of the laws of physics is therefore not a given fact but the consequence of coherence-based selection: coherence eliminates what cannot propagate or stabilize, leaving only those configurations that naturally maintain themselves and their surroundings. This also explains why the universe appears orderly at all: not because it is externally controlled, but because coherence structurally favors order over disorder — not statistically, but in form. Because the coherence principle and its filter operate in at least a similar way everywhere, it has been natural to regard the laws of nature as universal.

The coherence filter in Coherent Emergentism is therefore not a passive condition, but an active and generative principle that continuously shapes reality. It is not externally imposed but results from the fact that only coherent configurations endure. From this arises a central insight: spacetime, dark matter, and even the laws of physics are not fundamental structures, but phenomena that have emerged as a consequence of coherence. They are what remains when incoherent alternatives fail to persist. In this way, Coherent Emergentism offers a unified explanation — based not on given postulates but on the dynamic logic of coherence — for both the origin and structure of reality.

Coherence: The Quantum Glue That Connects Spacetime and Gravity

To conclude this first part, I will examine how one possible perspective within my theory regarding quantum entanglement could also be applied to other questions I have already addressed. In this context, Coherent Emergentism could be built on a profound insight: quantum coherence—the tendency of quantum systems to maintain stable, interdependent states—acts as a unifying principle that links the quantum world with gravitational phenomena. Rather than treating quantum mechanics and gravity as separate domains of reality, this view proposes that coherence itself is the hidden structure from which both phenomena emerge.

In this framework, spacetime is not a pre-existing backdrop, but an emergent phenomenon arising from coherent quantum entanglement. When particles become entangled, the information they share forms stable, relational structures. As these structures scale up, their geometric patterns collectively construct the fabric of spacetime. From this perspective, for example, the massiveness of a star does not bend spacetime through the transmission of a force, but because its internal coherence produces a dense and ordered network of entanglement that defines the shape of spacetime.

Instead of explaining gravity through hypothetical force carriers such as gravitons, it is seen as an expression of entanglement geometry. Regions with high coherence curve spacetime more strongly, while areas with low coherence curve it less. This naturally explains why massive bodies—composed of highly ordered quantum states—distort their surroundings: gravity is simply the macroscopic form of coherent structure.

Dark Phenomena from the Perspective of Coherence

•Dark matter can be interpreted as coherence deserts: regions where entanglement is too sparse or disorganized to emit light, yet which still exert gravitational influence because they are part of the structure of the coherence field.

•Dark energy may reflect the universe’s overall tendency toward increasing coherence, where cosmic expansion is the result of entropic pressure to optimize entanglement into greater order across space.

Unifying the Quantum and the Cosmic

•In black holes, extreme coherence may replace the concept of singularities and resolve the related paradoxes by substituting infinite density with highly organized entanglement cores.

•At the Planck scale, coherence smooths the quantum foam predicted by quantum gravity, making the observed stability of spacetime comprehensible without exotic assumptions.

This coherence-centered perspective offers a testable and unifying research program:

•Develop models in which the curvature of spacetime directly follows from entanglement structure.

•Simulate geometry based on entanglement in laboratory conditions using quantum systems.

•Use astrophysical data to create coherence maps, identifying dark matter and energy as pattern-based manifestations of entanglement structures in reality.

Coherent Emergentism redefines the universe as a self-organizing quantum network in which coherence is not a mere side effect but the fundamental glue from which both quantum behavior and gravity arise. In this way, it is the unifying thread that weaves together the smallest scales and the largest wholes.

Part 2

Broader Applications of My Theory of Coherent Emergentism

I now turn to examining how my theory can be more broadly applied to other aspects of reality, to science and thought, and to other key themes and questions. I begin with mathematics.

The Nature of Mathematics from the Perspective of Coherent Emergentism

Within the framework of Coherent Emergentism, mathematics can be understood as a phenomenon that arises from the internal consistency of the fundamental structures of reality. In this view, mathematics is not necessarily an independently existing entity, but rather a system of rules that models and reflects reality as consistently as possible. Mathematics thus functions as a way to organize our observations of the world—not as an independent part of reality, but as an emergent model born from our need to understand and explain.

The ontological status of mathematics is complex, because we have no way of stepping outside our own knowledge to objectively evaluate whether mathematics exists independently. This also relates to the foundational nature of axioms: they are assumptions on which all mathematical systems are built. While we cannot be certain that mathematics is objectively true, reality seems to follow its rules to some extent. Without such internal consistency, no meaningful framework for understanding could emerge.

Although mathematics cannot be said to be ontologically “true” in the same sense as physical phenomena, it serves as an extremely effective tool for describing and predicting reality. Its practical success suggests that it corresponds to reality at some level—otherwise, its models and predictions would not work in practice. Nevertheless, the truth value of mathematics cannot be definitively established; it is a set of rules whose purpose is to structure observations—not to provide a final image of what reality “is.” This view aligns with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which state that no mathematical system can contain all of its own truths and must therefore include internal limitations. No single mathematical theory can therefore fully describe reality. This suggests that a comprehensive understanding of reality requires a combination of multiple axiomatic systems and frameworks, each illuminating different aspects of reality.

The relationship between mathematics and reality can also be compared to algorithmic rules: no single theory explains everything, but there are logical connections between them. The parallel development of multiple mathematical frameworks and their optimal interaction could provide a more comprehensive way to model reality. In this sense, the simplest version of an algorithmic system could also include a description of how applicable mathematics—or applied branches of mathematics—relate to other mathematical systems.

The most effective mathematical models are those that produce the fewest contradictions. This makes them useful, but not necessarily absolutely true. Mathematics functions as a system of rules—just like the rules of a game—allowing for the description of reality and action within it. For example, the rules of chess are not inherently true or false—they define a structured way of playing the game. Likewise, mathematics is a structured way of understanding and describing the world—not its autonomous or objective component.

If we also consider that reality has no overarching meta-level, then the question of whether mathematics is ontologically true becomes meaningless. Such a meta-level would likely require some form of consciousness—or at the very least, recursive structures like self-reference. Without this perspective, mathematics remains a useful but ontologically undefined system of rules.

From the perspective of emergence, we can ask whether the limitations of mathematics in modeling large-scale wholes relate to phenomena such as chaos theory. Complex systems cannot always be traced back to simple initial conditions, and this may be the point at which emergence occurs. At this boundary, the distinction between unit and whole becomes blurred—and this is precisely where a new level of reality may emerge—perhaps even a new kind of mathematical system.

Ultimately, mathematics can be understood as an emergent phenomenon that arose from humanity’s need to structure the world. Its most refined forms are those capable of describing reality with the least internal contradiction. However, mathematics is not reality itself—it is a model that helps us approach it. Even if we cannot ultimately define the ontological relationship between mathematics and reality, we can state with confidence that mathematics is an irreplaceable tool for understanding and interacting with reality.

Finally, it can once again be stated that since we do not yet know with certainty the ultimate nature of mathematics or its relationship to reality, we should not assume that it is the only possible way to describe reality and its fundamental nature—as long as we cannot prove that reality is, at its core, mathematics, as Max Tegmark has proposed, we cannot know what the ultimate role of mathematics truly is. The same idea can be thought to apply also to logic.

On the Definition of Life

I now turn to considering how Coherent Emergentism relates to life—and afterwards, I will reflect on its relation to humanity and the human condition.

To begin with, we might define life as consisting of an internal system and order in which different parts interact with one another to form a unit with a degree of autonomy. Life would then be a loop of internal interdependence that develops toward more refined self-regulation, with human consciousness as its culmination. The definition of life would thus be the opposite of entropy: the growth of internal order. This would not violate the principle of entropy, however, because life increases the entropy of its environment as it organizes itself.

It can also be proposed that the smallest unit of life is the cell and that its operation is regulated by genes. The behavior of living organisms would then arise from the actions of these units in relation to one another. For example, in disease—as in everything else—the issue would be that the cells and genes responsible for it gain a dominant position in which they act in their own self-interest. Richard Dawkins’s idea of the selfish gene could fit this context. From his reasoning, and in relation to my theory, one might also suggest that what exists consists of both the unit and its memory trace of action. This could be a more general foundational mechanism of reality. Memory, in turn, leads to increasingly complex functioning and, at least in living beings, makes that functioning possible.

More broadly, we might indeed propose that humans and living things function as the stage upon which genes act—and that the result is a coordination of their combined influence, which, taken to its furthest, could produce consciousness. Coordination would always be limited to some degree and would operate according to its own imperfect principles. This same analogy can, within the framework of my theory, of course be applied more broadly to the world, reality, and the entire cosmos.

We can also ask whether the internal operating mechanisms of living organisms always follow the laws of nature—or whether they must. And could consciousness, for example, arise from deviations from natural laws? My view is that the fundamental mechanisms of nature always define a framework for how reality can operate—but that this framework can also be used in ways that are not themselves reducible to or fully explainable by those fundamental mechanisms. Such higher-level behavior could therefore emerge that is not merely a direct application of natural laws.

After this brief examination of life, I now turn to applying my theory more broadly to humanity.

The Limits of Human Understanding and the Nature of Thought

The human attempt to understand reality is based on language and thought, which are our central means of comprehending both the external and internal worlds. Yet these two—language and thought—are so deeply interwoven that achieving an objective perspective can become difficult. Our understanding can never be completely separate from ourselves. We cannot definitively know whether our worldview is tied to human subjectivity or whether it reflects something objective.

This idea I presented is also visible in the limitations of thinking. A thought experiment like the ancient “Ship of Theseus” (in which the planks of a ship are replaced one by one—raising the question of whether it is still the same ship) shows how the human mind cannot grasp every phenomenon without contradiction. Reality itself, however, does not “care” when the ship ceases to be the original—the ambiguity arises from human thinking, not from the event itself.

This is related to Wittgenstein’s idea that language cannot fully describe reality. Perhaps it can be interpreted more broadly: maybe no human model can ever fully capture reality. Still, this cannot be categorically proven. The limitations may not arise from language itself, but from our total human limitation—our biology, experiential history, and mental architecture. Mathematics and other tools of thought may extend and deepen our understanding, but they do not necessarily transcend the boundary of humanity altogether.

Although human understanding of reality is always subjective, this does not mean that our understanding cannot be reasonably truthful. We cannot know for certain whether something is objectively true, but we can act as though it is—especially when observations and their consequences repeat in a predictable manner. Some questions cannot be resolved—not because language is limited, but because human means are insufficient. For instance, even mathematics cannot be evaluated fully from outside itself.

At the heart of metaphysics may lie the question: can a person observe or conceive of reality independently of themselves? We experience something that seems independent of us, but we cannot fully separate our projection from that experience. Therefore, truth always also requires acceptance of reality. The most important distinction is between inner experience and the external world—and perhaps, if a statement can be understood completely and its logic verified, it can be thought to describe reality—or at least a possible reality.

Truth may thus be a human-made concept that helps interpret events, whereas reality is what is—indifferent to concepts and meanings. Something could therefore be true, even if it does not manifest in reality, if it still follows coherent and truth-bearing pathways of reality. For example, in religion, morality, and mathematics, we can propose models that are true in some sense—at least in their own sense—even if they are not physical phenomena.

Questions like “why does the universe exist?” reveal this difference. Reality does not answer such questions—they are constructions of the human mind, related to truth. Science attempts to model reality functionally, but even it is an interpretive system—not the final description of reality.

However, humans have a unique ability to approach reality on a meta-level. Through technology and science, we can strip away parts of our subjectivity and approach something resembling objectivity. If we build a technological device that functions in a complex way, we can reasonably assume that this shows there are things outside individual experience—and that we understand something about how reality works. This does not negate the fact that it is the human who asks, constructs, and models—without humans, the concept of truth would not exist. Human subjectivity is thus both a limitation and a prerequisite for understanding.

Human consciousness adds a layer to reality that nothing else seems to produce. Questions like chance and determinism matter only to us—not to the universe itself. Events just happen. Yet experience has value because it generates meaning.

Human thoughts can also be considered real, even though they are not physical objects. They arise from physical mechanisms but are functional in nature—not material. In this sense, the human creates a meta-level that reality itself cannot access—and perhaps in this lies our uniqueness.

It can also be assumed that humans can internally model external reality. For instance, the enjoyment of music shows that the brain is able to organize experience in ways that are commensurable with the external world and with other people. This suggests that reality functions coherently and that the human is part of this coherence. The distinction between thought and phenomenon is real, but not absolute: both are expressions of the same reality on different levels.

On Consciousness and Free Will

In the framework of Coherent Emergentism, consciousness can be understood as a phenomenon that is not reducible to individual brain processes, but one that arises from the interaction of higher-level systems. It is possible that the origin of both consciousness and reality involves similar occurrences—small, rare coincidences that generate unpredictable but structurally significant wholes. Consciousness is not, in that case, a byproduct of reality but its structured reflection, even though this does not mean that reality itself is conscious.

Therefore, consciousness need not be the purpose or goal of the universe. On the contrary, it would be a major metaphysical assumption to claim that reality was constructed specifically for the sake of consciousness. That would be a bigger leap than belief in a god. Nevertheless, consciousness appears as a real and experiential phenomenon that is not fully reducible to matter. This is especially connected to the idea I explored earlier—that the function of what exists cannot be reduced directly to its being. It can also be proposed that even if consciousness has no “significance” in the scale of the universe, its existence is still philosophically significant.

Consciousness thus seems to refer to emergence—that is, to the formation of new, autonomous, and functionally capable wholes from something simpler. If free will does not exist, but consciousness does, is that in itself evidence of emergence? If not, do we then fall into panpsychism or total reductionism? Both alternatives face difficulties in explaining the experiential core of consciousness.

Yet we can at least assume that we are conscious. Consciousness, as we are able to observe it in our own experience, is itself a sign that a higher level exists—something that is not reducible to individual components. In this sense, consciousness is a kind of energetic whole: it directs behavior, models the world, and can even influence the body’s physiology, such as improving sleep quality through reading.

The existence of free will is one of the most difficult philosophical questions. From the perspective of Coherent Emergentism, however, we can suggest that the possibility of free will is not incompatible with determinism—at least when looking backward, and if we understand that freedom emerges at a higher systemic level. Although all new behavior is based on the past, emergence allows for the formation of new operational mechanisms, which are not directly reducible to their parts.

If a human can, for example, invent the theory of relativity or make a self-destructive decision, we can ask: was there something truly free in those moments? Were they merely the results of cause-effect chains, or examples of subtle free will that can no longer be traced back to the lower level? As an analogy, one might think again of a god who builds a mountain so large that even he cannot move it—in the same way, a person may do something whose origin can no longer be fully reduced to a reductive explanation.

Quantum mechanical indeterminism also offers a possible mechanistic basis for free will. Although the brain may not be an ideal environment for quantum effects, we can still ask: could the cooperative activity of neurons—the complex dynamics of billions of nerve cells—allow for momentary freedom, or at least autonomy, at some level? In certain situations, this may indeed be the case—at least to the extent that the whole can influence the function of the unit. From this, a concept of limited or contextual free will could be derived.

We can also ask what happens when the quantum world encounters a truly emergent whole, such as a living being. Could this interaction result in genuine indeterminism? If so, this could also lead to truly emergent behavior—that is, behavior that is neither predictable nor reducible to the behavior of its parts.

The relationship between freedom and emergence is therefore central to Coherent Emergentism. If it can be shown that freedom really manifests, then emergence must also exist. At the same time, we can ask: why would there be consciousness if we were not free to use it? Evolutionary biology implies that things which have developed under its guidance exist for some reason—because of their function. If consciousness is merely an illusion, why does it exist, and why do we experience it as we do? If consciousness is only a passive result, its significance disappears. But if it is capable of influencing behavior—at the individual or collective level—it functions as an active element in the structuring of reality.

Can we further assume that Coherent Emergentism, at the level of the brain—but also in social and cultural systems—allows the whole to influence the units? This can happen especially when collective behavior shapes individual possibilities and behaviors. Such interaction is one hallmark of emergence.

Consciousness, as we experience it, is in my view perhaps the best evidence that emergence is a real phenomenon. It is not just a cognitive tool but an experience that exceeds purely material explanations. The possibility—or even inevitability—of freedom and emergence opens a new kind of perspective on the relationship between the human mind and reality. And even if consciousness is not the purpose of the universe, it may be one of its significant byproducts—or even an inevitable outcome of its structural coherence.

Coherent Emergentism and Humanity

According to Coherent Emergentism, only the most foundational elements of reality—those that are internally consistent and non-contradictory with the rest of reality—can develop and give rise to increasingly complex structures. Based on this principle, life and consciousness have emerged when development reached a sufficient level of complexity. This also means that consciousness cannot be reduced purely to materialism; its existence is based on a complex, emergent system in which the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

In fact, this applies at all levels of reality. For example, in biology, this is already taken for granted, but the same idea can be applied to molecules (e.g., a group of water molecules alone can together produce the state of wetness, even though wetness cannot be derived from the behavior of a single molecule) as well as to the functioning of society and the economy.

Human experience—including suffering, morality, and the search for meaning—is a product of this emergence, ultimately arising in the brain. Humanity’s uniqueness is based on the achievements of this emergence: the capacity to understand reality at a meta-level. It is a rare ability that the universe itself does not seem to possess. Language, culture, and thought are tools of this advanced state through which humans navigate reality, but they do not describe reality directly—at least not in a way that gives us certainty that they always provide an objectively accurate picture of it. Rather, we can say that they shape and limit the human experience of reality.

This view can also be applied more broadly to how and what people think about reality and how they understand it. For example, the concept of God may not be justified in relation to how reality functions: Coherent Emergentism explains the origin, cause, and development of reality without the need for God. On the other hand, it can be argued that Coherent Emergentism leaves open the possibility that God could exist. For instance, one might propose that God is the ultimate reason why reality is structured according to the principles of Coherent Emergentism. However, this can never be conclusively proven right or wrong.

Although we cannot be sure whether God exists objectively, we do know that belief in God influences human thinking and behavior. Occam’s razor, applied through my theory, suggests that it is more reasonable to assume that God does not exist—but the question remains open, because reality itself does not take a position on such matters. The question of God might fundamentally be about whether the universe has a meta-level, as I have already reflected earlier. Could God be precisely this? And might it be that we can never get an answer to this question because we can never fully resolve the question of a meta-level in reality?

My Theory’s Perspective on Morality

Let us now extend my theory to the realm of morality. According to my theory, moral principles are not fundamental components of reality in a sense that could be objectively verified. However, they can still be true and valuable within their own frameworks. They can also be true in the sense that they guide people toward coherent and functional communal existence and interaction. Furthermore, they may be considered true in the sense that life and consciousness are, from the perspective of reality itself, valuable and rare phenomena that should be protected and preserved—and moral principles make this possible.

The connection between my theory and historical moral theory could be the following: it combines all major traditions into the most functional whole and holds that all are needed. My theory maintains that in the operation of phenomena, both the behavior of the smallest unit and the behavior of the entire system are important—and that they influence each other. Their mechanisms cannot be directly compared or derived from one another.

How does this apply more specifically to moral theories? First of all, in that no single moral principle is, in itself, true, false, or absolute—at least not from the perspective of reality. Instead, we can consider that value can be found in all of them, and that in practical thinking and action, a golden mean should be found between them—one that draws insight from each perspective and applies it as needed.

Perhaps, when it comes to morality, this golden mean might look something like this: the two most central ideas could be utilitarianism and Kant’s deontological ethics. One seeks the greatest well-being for the whole, while the other seeks the morally right individual act based on duty. It is also clear that following either of these blindly leads to situations that are difficult to accept.

How, then, can these be integrated under my theory? For example, we might think that the goal is the well-functioning well-being of the collective, but that this cannot be achieved by any means whatsoever. We must therefore construct a whole that works without violating principles that protect the dignity of each individual. Thus, observing both individual actions and the overall state is important, and both perspectives must be taken into account.

My theory also emphasizes the importance of mechanisms of action and their meaning. This could be applied to morality by saying that we must also discover those mechanisms in the world that most effectively lead to well-being, without contradicting our fundamental values. In moral matters, these could best be discovered through common discussion, in which everyone is heard, and facts are the foundation of debate. Deliberative democracy could already be considered an existing method for achieving this goal.

In addition, normativity is also interesting from the standpoint of my theory. Can we think that what ought to be morally can be set up as its own kind of truth—one independent of external evaluation or perspective? In a strictly objective sense, my theory asserts that this is not the case—at least not when reality is viewed in terms of its material being and the features associated with it. Still, moral normative concepts can be true within their own frameworks—perhaps even in an objectively meaningful way—but the question of whether they are part of the truth of reality is once again meaningless and absurd, in the same way I previously argued mathematics is.

The Theory and Spirituality

What would my theory imply for individual values and associated spirituality? In my view, the theory could extend into a kind of spirituality for the modern age. It would elevate all sentient beings to a special status in the universe—especially humans, due to the advanced nature of their consciousness—without attaching this to anything traditionally religious. People could thus experience that the human individual is truly and genuinely valuable and meaningful, and that there is a certain mystique to human existence, even if it is still explainable.

Perhaps in this way, new kinds of experiences related to a new form of spirituality could also be found: people might feel more deeply connected to the universe and to their own special place within it. A spirituality for the modern age could be a sense of cosmic connectedness and a respect for human uniqueness, experience, and consciousness. This could also leave room for more traditional religious experiences, even if the doctrines of religion are not directly supported by my theory. According to my theory, the human being of the future should instead rely on cosmic spirituality. Transcendental goodness could be linked alongside this cosmic experience—as an experience that goodness is, in some way, universal and worth striving for.

My theory is also connected to the idea of Earth as a whole: the significance of cooperation would be emphasized, and therefore every individual unit would be important. It would be believed that the Earth is valuable as a totality and that the human being is a part of it, and that their actions matter—just as all other parts of the whole do. This could also motivate stronger action in terms of environmental protection and the fight against climate change. Likewise, all parts of the Earth should be more carefully preserved, because they are all meaningful for the functioning and state of the whole.

Coherent Emergentism as a Philosophy of Life

Reality is truly real for us, as human beings. We do not live in an illusion, a dream, a multiverse, or at the brink of heavenly salvation or doom—but are part of a single reality that does not require an external explanation, origin, or purpose. Everything that exists is internally coherent, self-constructed, and continuously evolving. This applies also to your life: you are part of reality, and the meaning of your life arises from within—not from external influences.

Because there is no predetermined purpose and no afterlife, the meaning and values of your life are built entirely through you. You are free to create your own philosophy of life. You can define your own values, principles, and ways of living—or draw inspiration for them from other people, cultures, and philosophies. However, freedom does not mean isolation: your worldview is best developed through interaction with others, by testing ideas and reflecting them against shared experience and history.

Even though objective, eternal moral truths do not exist in a physical sense, you can still adopt timeless principles in your thinking—ones that are internally coherent and meaningful within their own framework. They can guide your actions like stars in the night—not because they were handed down, but because you chose them.

You are valuable simply because you exist. You are conscious and capable of experience—including suffering. This very capacity to suffer, and above all, your consciousness, make you unique: reality has evolved through you to the point where it can reflect on itself. Your consciousness generates unique meaning, and your experience carries weight. You bring a new layer to reality: understanding and purpose.

Yet understanding is never complete. Reality—and you—are in constant motion, in continuous development. For this reason, a philosophy of life is not a fixed formula, but a process shaped by your observations, choices, and relationship to the world. You are made of the same matter as stars, planets, and plants, and you can feel a deep connection to all that exists, because you are its continuation—not an external observer.

In addition, you are part of society and of this planet. Your responsibility extends beyond yourself. A coherent philosophy of life takes into account the whole—that individual freedom and meaning are constructed in relation to others, to society, and to the biosphere.

Coherent Emergentism offers a foundation for a worldview that does not require external causes or religious dogmas—but in which religious and spiritual experiences can still be understood as part of human subjective reality. They can be true for the individual, even if not objectively verifiable.

Ultimately, each person must build their own worldview: a life philosophy grounded in freedom, which acknowledges the value of subjective experience, the continuous evolution of reality, and the fact that you have both the power and the responsibility to influence all of it.

Society and Economy

How, then, does my theory apply to societal and economic thinking? Above all, the following could be said about my theory: both bottom-up and top-down approaches are important at the societal level, and combining the best aspects of both—making use of them together—creates the most coherent whole. This whole cannot be understood or managed without such a comprehensive understanding.

The same applies to groups of people as well as to the experience of the individual. Democracy, as both an idea and a mode of operation, would according to this view be valuable precisely because the needs, operating mechanisms, thoughts, and wishes of every individual should be taken into account. In relation to democracy, one could also argue that the needs of citizens should be listened to more at the local level, while at the same time the world should also be coordinated at a higher level in a way that is not directly derived from the local, but in which the rights of all are respected—including universal human rights. However, even at this higher level, all bottom-up-organized groups and their ideas should be listened to also from the top down.

As for the impact on economics in relation to my theory, the following could be said: a rational economically active individual would create a rational whole, but the whole is at the same time greater than the sum of its parts. Mechanisms that work for both sides should be utilized, but not accepted blindly. The economy as a whole should therefore also be governed in a way that produces the greatest collective and individual well-being. In this way, my theory fits well with the idea of regulating market forces and building a welfare state. Related to emergence, it could also be stated that even the functioning of the stock market is an example of this, as its movements cannot be directly reduced to the actions of individuals.

Regarding the mechanisms of well-being, it could be considered that they would utilize all the most effective mechanisms for increasing well-being. Concerning the world, it could be thought that politics and the economy—at local, national, and global levels—should be organized in a way that supports this, both in terms of the whole and its functioning. For this, one must also take a stand on the well-being of both individuals and communities. Supported by my theory, it can also be proposed that these global mechanisms may be different from those at other levels. A form of global Keynesianism could be such a global system of mechanisms.

Human Rights and Morality

From the perspective of Coherent Emergentism, human rights can be justified not as arbitrary conventions, but as principles that support the emergence and persistence of coherent structures within human society. Human dignity, freedom, and equality are not simply ideals—they are preconditions for the development of systems in which conscious beings can meaningfully participate. These rights foster individual and collective coherence.

If individuals are treated as mere means, excluded, or denied their agency, they lose their capacity to participate in the development of the whole. This weakens not only personal well-being but also the coherence of society as a system. Human rights thus serve as structural conditions for emergent social coherence. They are principles that ensure individuals remain integrated and empowered parts of the whole.

Similarly, morality is not a system of eternal cosmic truths imposed from outside, but a dynamic and evolving mechanism for preserving and cultivating coherence among people. Moral behavior can be defined as behavior that supports the long-term emergence of coherent systems—both interpersonally and societally. Immoral behavior, on the other hand, creates incoherence: it isolates, divides, destabilizes, and ultimately collapses relationships, communities, or even civilizations.

This view allows for a contextual and functional definition of good and evil:

•Good is that which enables and strengthens coherence across different levels—individual, communal, and global.

•Evil is that which disrupts, denies, or destroys that coherence.

Such a morality does not require fixed commandments or dogmas. It evolves as systems evolve and becomes more refined as complexity increases. At the same time, it can be grounded in experience, science, and reflection. It can be taught, tested, and defended.

Because humans are emergent systems themselves, with consciousness, experience, and agency, their dignity and moral status follow directly from the same principles that define emergence in nature. Morality, then, is not imposed upon us from above—it arises from the nature of being itself.

Thus, coherent emergentism supports a morality that is both realist and flexible. It is realist in the sense that it arises from the structure of reality itself and flexible in that it adapts as the systems it governs evolve.

My Theory’s Relation to Technological Development

How does my theory relate to technological development? Especially the operating mechanisms of artificial intelligence are an interesting theme in this context. When we know that AI functions based on simple operating principles that are massively replicated, this implies that reality and consciousness may also arise from the simple operation of the smallest unit—ultimately based on the dialogue between being and non-being.

The relationship between technology and consciousness also raises the question of what constitutes the core of humanity and of consciousness itself. If consciousness were transferred into a machine, would something essential be lost? Coherent Emergentism might suggest that consciousness, as it appears in the human brain, is a unique phenomenon that cannot be directly transplanted elsewhere. This may be because of the emergent processes of its formation and operation—processes that influence the brain in ways that cannot be reduced—especially when we consider how consciousness relates to its own past and development. This also supports the philosophical idea of qualia, the notion that consciousness has a particular experiential quality that makes it unique and allows the conscious being to feel things on an additional level—that is, to internally experience things in a way that cannot be understood through reductionism alone.

However, it can also be argued that this experience of consciousness could eventually be replicated through technology, and that such a consciousness would still be intrinsically valuable—especially if it could be shown to experience suffering. Nor could that experience be transferred to a new entity that differs from the original.

Could there also be an artificial intelligence with a singularity, capable of inventing every possible idea that can be invented—at least in a physical sense? Such an AI could verify the accuracy of my theory and at the same time demonstrate that consciousness is fundamentally the result of the interplay of its components and not something possible only in the human brain. In addition, this AI would resemble Laplace’s demon—one that could generate all conceivable ideas. If reality operates according to the principle of coherence, as my theory proposes, even the theories developed by such an AI would be limited to coherent ones.

Still, this raises the question: is Laplace’s demon a meaningless concept if the universe is not conscious of itself? If the universe is not self-aware, then knowing the state of every particle would not necessarily allow one to predict the course of reality—because the development of reality always includes indeterminacy. We might also ask: if all of reality—and even mathematics—is the product of someone else’s creation, could we notice it? And why might we—or why might we not? What would follow from this? If a meta-level exists, then it would have to be assumed, at least partially, that this is the case—and that humans can then comprehend all of reality. I myself believe neither of these apply: reality includes randomness, and its development cannot be predicted—because it contains internal emergence. We might also conclude that if there is no meta-level in reality, we cannot understand it through pure reductionism either, and emergence becomes a necessity.

If, for example, the human brain can be modified to improve an individual’s well-being, this raises the question: is that experience “true”? If not, does it matter—and was the original experience true or valuable in itself? And what remains if such changes are made? My view is that the new situation is real—but not in a way that replicates the natural internal experience of a human being, the world, and truth. That, too, can be changed—and we can think that with that change, a new, emergent whole is born, which is also real in its own way of functioning and being.

The freedom experienced by humans is not absolute freedom from all rules, but the capacity to construct and maintain one’s own coherent form. Every individual is a unique, coherently emergent whole with intrinsic value and freedom. That freedom must respect the coherence of others—and not harm it. And likewise, not harm emergence itself.

In summary, this section affirms that Coherent Emergentism ultimately provides a model in which human consciousness, suffering (and the suffering of all sentient beings), thought, and morality are the result of complex interactions that cannot be reduced to material components alone. The human beings and the reality they create are not merely data; their history and experience continuously shape them. This makes a person more than the sum of their parts—and distinguishes them from the rest of reality in a way that cannot be trivially dismissed.

Part 3

Further Reflections on Coherent Emergentism

Arguments in Support of Coherent Emergentism

To begin, I examine how my theory relates to reductionism, which may be assumed to be its strongest rival. In reductionism, it is assumed that everything in reality can be explained by the behavior of its basic components: all events would be the result of initial conditions and natural laws. In such a reality, there would be no room for indeterminism or free will—not even for time as we experience it, since it would be a mere illusion. Reductionism offers an elegant but possibly alien model to human experience: it explains by simplicity but may lose the richness of understanding.

Scientific progress will likely eventually lean either toward reductionism or toward emergentism. If everything can ultimately be explained reductively, then reductionism wins. However, if that happens, many may experience life as losing its meaning. That psychological effect, in itself, could reflect back on human behavior, suggesting that reality may not be fully reducible: the impact would not be merely intellectual, but practical, behavioral, societal—and capable of generating new, unpredictable action.

Yet if genuine emergence can be fully explained reductively, we would need to be able to derive from it not only the universe’s initial state but also all associated conditions. This might render the multiverse theory necessary, because our own reality would not account for all modes of existence. Still, it is difficult to imagine a world without any indeterminism or free will. Emergence, in my view, offers a more plausible alternative for explaining all of reality: if there was no freedom or indeterminism, why, for instance, would we experience time as flowing and changing? And how would this explain relativity, in which time itself is a variable?

Reductionism would also need to demonstrate that the apparent indeterminism of quantum mechanics is only superficial—and that random events have no real consequences, particularly in the living world. While reductionism is an effective and practical model, the remaining question is: is it sufficient to explain the full richness of the world? If yes, the result is strange—too simple to explain the complexity we constantly encounter.

The credibility of emergence is fundamentally linked to the question of the structure of reality. Is the universe one-dimensional—a totality that can be reduced to a single layer? Or is it made up of multiple interdependent levels, each with its own functionally autonomous mechanisms?

If everything were reducible, we would have no need to use concepts like consciousness, life, ecosystems, or society. Yet we do—and across different disciplines (biology, psychology, sociology, climate science). This suggests that higher levels have real causal influence—not merely practical or descriptive value.

In physics, we also know of emergent phenomena in which the large-scale behavior of systems follows new laws that are not visible in their parts. Phase transitions demonstrate that when matter changes from gas to liquid or solid, new laws emerge (like surface tension in water) that cannot be derived from the properties of individual molecules. In condensed matter physics, superconductivity and superfluidity appear only when particles are in specific states—but no individual electron or atom is “superconductive” in itself. The emergence of spacetime, as suggested by some modern physical theories like the holographic principle, implies that space and time are not fundamental but arise from quantum processes as emergent phenomena. These examples suggest that emergent laws are not random but arise from the internal coherence of the system.

From a mathematical perspective, we again see that certain wholes can only be understood by simulating their behavior—not simply by knowing the parts. In such systems, no simple mathematical formula exists that explains the system’s dynamics. (Does this also suggest that mathematics alone is insufficient to understand reality?) Statistical and chaotic rules show that mathematically, emergence is tied to the complexity of systems and a kind of self-regulation.

Chaos theory and complex systems theory show that in many systems, small differences in initial conditions can lead to entirely different outcomes. In such cases, emergent rules are statistical, not deterministic, and they manifest only in the interaction of large numbers of components. Nonlinearity and emergence mean, for instance, that in the climate system, small changes can have large effects—but the phenomena still follow their own mathematical rules (such as the Lorenz equations).

Game theory and models of emergent behavior show that while individual agents may act based on strategies, system-level laws arise that the agents themselves did not design—such as market mechanisms in economics. Based on these mathematical examples, we can say that emergent rules are not mechanical but follow dynamic equations that may include nonlinearity and sensitivity to initial conditions.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle again reminds us that we cannot know everything simultaneously (does this reinforce chaos theory?). The more interaction relationships exist, the harder they are to reduce—and this is especially true of actual reality, which we know to be extremely complex.

Further Arguments and Evidence for the Theory

Emergence is also observable, for example, in the brain—where the whole is, in some way, conscious of itself and influences the brain’s activity as a whole, as well as its subsystems, and thus indirectly its individual units. Consciousness also affects the brain through feedback, for which neuroplasticity provides strong evidence. Emotions affect brain activity, and the brain adapts according to experience. Similarly, natural ecosystems regulate themselves and the populations of individual species through self-regulation. We can therefore assume that some form of autonomy exists.

Emergence can also be assumed to be possible if we consider that initial conditions eventually become decoupled from their effects—just as we have seen in mathematics.

•At the societal level, norms and economic systems also affect individual behavior, showing that higher-level structures can shape lower-level ones. If everything were reducible, such feedback effects would not occur.

•An emergent system, however, produces new causal mechanisms that cannot be directly derived from the lower-level components.

•The whole does not merely respond—it also influences its parts.

The relationship between the individual and emergent behavior is also central. Social phenomena, such as culture, do not just arise from the actions of individuals—they also shape individuals’ consciousness and behavior. This suggests that consciousness itself is emergent and arises from the interaction between multiple levels.

Language can also be seen as an example of emergence: it is not just an individual capacity but arises from collective need and, in turn, shapes individual thinking. The human brain’s sensitivity to learning demonstrates that the brain is structurally prepared to receive emergent structures like language and culture.

In my theory, it is thus both possible and likely that all of reality is built upon emergent structures in which different levels dynamically influence each other. This also increases the indeterminacy of reality: if not all influence can be predicted from lower levels, then something genuinely new and unpredictable must exist.

Everyday phenomena also support the credibility of emergence. Conversations, the exchange of ideas, and the creation of new insights demonstrate that emergence is real: someone comes up with a new thought, inspired by others, or begins to see something in a new way. These situations cannot be mechanically repeated or predicted based solely on previous states. They are examples of how cooperation gives rise to something new—something that cannot be reduced to parts.

To evaluate the plausibility of my theory, it is useful to compare it to other philosophical and scientific models:

•Panpsychism, for example, fails to explain why not all things—like rocks—are conscious, and it offers no clear account of how the structure of consciousness arises.

•Coherent Emergentism, by contrast, can in principle connect these phenomena to the structure and operation of the brain and explain why consciousness arises in certain systems but not in others.

Reductionism is a formidable rival to my theory, as it offers simple and consistent models of explanation. Yet reductionism faces problems with phenomena where the behavior of the whole is not derivable from the parts—as is the case with chaos theory, climate systems, or even basic physical phenomena like wetness. Mathematics shows that some systems exhibit uncontrollable chaos that cannot be modeled accurately from individual variables. This can be interpreted as evidence that some systems inherently include emergent features.

Especially when a phenomenon involves feedback loops that are faster and more comprehensive than the activity of its individual parts—as in the brain—we may be dealing with true emergence. The whole can influence the functioning of individual parts without being reducible to a sum of them.

•Consciousness, in this light, affects the brain, and neuroplasticity confirms this.

•Ecosystems, similarly, influence the population dynamics of their species through emergent mechanisms.

•Societal norms and economies shape individuals, and these systems cannot be fully traced to the decisions of single people.

Language, again, is not the product of any one individual but of collective emergence. Its structure then shapes thought and identity. And yet, it arises from basic capacities shared by humans.

This all suggests that higher levels—emergent levels—are real, have causal power, and evolve in response to internal and external pressures.

How Coherent Emergentism Could Be Proven Valid

To demonstrate the validity of Coherent Emergentism, we would need to show the existence of phenomena that cannot be reduced to the function of individual parts, but which emerge only at the level of the whole, and in novel ways. One possible method of proof would be to demonstrate that two nearly identical systems, operating in identical environments, can over time develop differently because of divergent emergent mechanisms. This would mean that despite the parts being essentially the same, the development of the whole would not be entirely predictable or reducible, but that higher-level structures would influence the behavior of their components in unique ways. Demonstrating such a phenomenon would clearly strengthen the evidential basis of the theory.

If it can be shown that two nearly identical systems operate according to different emergent mechanisms, this could support Coherent Emergentism in multiple ways. Let us explore this question from various theoretical angles:

1. Strengthening the Distinction Between Being and Function

Coherent Emergentism is built on the idea that what exists (the physical structures) does not automatically determine how it functions (emergent mechanisms and systemic behavior). If two nearly identical systems behave differently, this supports the core concept of the theory: functional properties emerge from interaction and are not merely byproducts of base components.

•Example: Two identical neural networks might develop distinct thought patterns or behaviors due to small differences in experience. This would suggest that thought and consciousness are not merely functions of physical structure but emerge from dynamic, system-level processes.

2. Partial Inconsistency as a Source of Complexity

According to the theory, perfect consistency is not necessarily optimal for the development of emergence. If two nearly identical systems behave differently, this may be due to partial inconsistency, which enables divergent emergent paths.

•Example: This supports the idea that complex systems are not static but dynamic and evolve in response to both internal and external variation.

•Consequence: Small differences could lead to different emergent pathways, showing that emergence is not strictly determined by initial conditions but also shaped by the system’s internal coherence relationships.

3. The Role of Quantum Uncertainty in Reality Formation

If two nearly identical systems develop different emergent behaviors, this could also be due to small quantum-level differences that expand over time into macroscopic patterns.

•Example: Quantum fluctuations might cause minor variations that shape which emergent behaviors arise in complex systems.

•Consequence: This would support the idea that the emergence of reality is not entirely deterministic, but instead shaped by probabilistic elements that influence system development.

4. Mathematical Perspective: Selection Among Possible Systems

My theory holds that all possible quantum configurations could exist, but only those that preserve broader coherence are selected. If two nearly identical systems develop different emergent behaviors, this could imply:

•Among many possible emergent pathways, systems select different ones based on subtle internal or external perturbations.

•This would support the view that reality is not predetermined, but composed of self-selecting structures that guide emergence in different directions.

5. Testability and Falsifiability of the Theory

If it can be empirically demonstrated that two nearly identical systems can develop differently as a result of emergence, this would provide a testable hypothesis for Coherent Emergentism.

•Example: One could investigate at which levels (quantum, biological, cognitive) such differences arise, and how they influence broader emergent processes.

•Example: If the systems respond differently to identical environmental stimuli or internal triggers, this would provide evidence that emergent behavior is not strictly predetermined but shaped by contextual dynamics and partial incoherence.

Conclusion: Strengthened Evidential Basis

If two nearly identical systems can behave according to different emergent mechanisms, this would support several central claims of Coherent Emergentism:

1.Being and function are distinct — the same components can produce different functional outcomes.

2.Partial inconsistency increases complexity — systems do not need to be perfectly consistent to function; inconsistency may enable new emergent possibilities.

3.Quantum uncertainty influences emergence — small variations can lead to divergent macroscopic structures.

4.Mathematical emergence is not deterministic — systems can self-select among many pathways, not all of which are determined by initial conditions.

5.The theory becomes testable — emergence becomes empirically observable and falsifiable.

Thus, the observation described above would not only support Coherent Emergentism but also help refine it into a more robust and testable theory about the structure of reality.

Possible Tests in Support of Coherent Emergentism

If two nearly identical systems can develop different emergent mechanisms, we can design experiments across multiple levels—quantum, biological, cognitive, and social—to test this principle. Below are examples of potential experiments that could support the theory.

1. Quantum Level: Superpositions and Emergent Divergence

Hypothesis: Small fluctuations at the quantum level can lead to distinct macroscopic emergent outcomes, even when initial conditions are nearly identical.

Experimental Proposal:

•Extended Double-Slit Experiments with photons or electrons

•Set up two identical experimental conditions (e.g. double-slit setups) in which individual photons or electrons are directed at barriers.

•Over long periods, measure whether differences arise in interference patterns despite identical setups.

•Test whether subtle environmental factors (temperature, cosmic radiation) influence how superposition collapses.

Possible Result:

If statistically significant differences emerge over time between the two setups, this would suggest that minute quantum-level disturbances can lead to divergent emergent paths.

2. Biological Evolution: Identical Populations, Divergent Outcomes

Hypothesis: Two nearly identical biological populations can develop differently due to stochastic and emergent processes, even under nearly identical conditions.

Experimental Proposal:

•Modified Lenski-Type Evolution Experiment

•Take two genetically identical bacterial populations and cultivate them in meticulously controlled but physically separate environments.

•Observe whether different adaptive strategies or gene expressions emerge over many generations.

Possible Result:

If the populations evolve divergent adaptations despite identical starting points and environmental conditions, this would provide biological evidence of non-reducible emergence shaped by stochastic fluctuations and feedback loops.

3. Neuroscience: Identical Neural Networks and Emergent Divergence

Hypothesis: Two identical neural networks (biological or artificial) may develop divergent cognitive patterns due to emergent internal dynamics.

Experimental Proposal:

•Training of Deep Neural Networks or Neural Cell Cultures

•Create two identical neural networks (e.g. AI architectures or lab-grown neural cultures).

•Train both on the same dataset or stimulate both with identical inputs.

•Observe whether small stochastic variations result in functionally different internal representations or learning strategies.

Possible Result:

If the networks respond differently, form distinct representations, or make divergent decisions, this would support the idea that cognition is an emergent process influenced by irreducible dynamics and self-structuring behavior.

4. Social Systems: Emergent Divergence in Human-Like Communities

Hypothesis: Social groups with nearly identical structures and conditions can develop different cultural or behavioral norms due to emergent social dynamics.

Experimental Proposal:

•Virtual Societies or Comparative Historical Analysis

•Simulate two virtually identical societies using agent-based models (ABMs) where individual agents follow simple rules.

•Introduce small random initial differences and observe whether the emergent structures (norms, hierarchies, institutions) diverge significantly.

•Alternatively, analyze real-world twin communities or cultures that diverged despite shared origins.

Possible Result:

If such systems evolve differently over time, this would show that collective human behavior and social norms are not fully reducible to starting conditions but involve emergent feedback processes.

5. Technology and AI: Identical Systems with Diverging Behavior

Hypothesis: Two identical artificial intelligence systems may develop distinct behaviors due to emergent algorithmic dynamics and stochastic learning processes.

Experimental Proposal:

•Training Two Identical AI Systems in Slightly Varied Environments

◉Initialize two identical AI models and train them with slightly randomized input orders or weights.

◉Observe whether the models develop different strategies, heuristics, or personalities despite being structurally the same.

Possible Result:

If the AI systems exhibit divergent behaviors or learning paths, this would support the claim that emergent behavior arises not from structural design alone but from dynamic feedback over time.

Conclusion: How These Tests Would Strengthen the Theory

If the tests outlined above provide consistent evidence that:

•Identical systems can produce divergent emergent outcomes,

•Stochastic variation can amplify into macro-scale behavioral differences,

•And coherence shapes which patterns persist,

Then Coherent Emergentism would be empirically strengthened. These results would:

•Support the theory’s claims about the distinction between being and function,

•Demonstrate the generative power of partial inconsistency,

•Confirm that quantum-level uncertainty can influence emergence,

•And most importantly, provide falsifiable, testable criteria for emergence as a real phenomenon.

Mathematical Evidence Supporting My Theory

How does my theory receive further support from mathematics? There are many mathematical phenomena and theories that support the core ideas of Coherent Emergentism—especially those that concern partial inconsistency, emergence, and the distinction between being and function. Here are several central mathematical perspectives that can provide additional support for my theory:

1. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems: Internal Limitations of Formal Systems

Core Insight: Any logically consistent system that is complex enough to describe arithmetic cannot be both complete and consistent.

Relevance to Coherent Emergentism:

•This supports the idea that systems cannot be entirely self-contained and internally perfect without some external reference or inherent limitation.

•Partial inconsistency may be a natural feature of emergent processes—and complete internal consistency may not be achievable or even desirable.

•Mathematical Emergence: If all systems have inherent limits, emergence cannot be a fully self-contained process—it requires interaction, context, and the generation of higher-order coherence.

2. Chaos Theory and Sensitivity to Initial Conditions

Core Insight: Deterministic systems can still behave unpredictably if they are highly sensitive to initial conditions—also known as the ”butterfly effect.”

Relevance to Coherent Emergentism:

•Two nearly identical systems may evolve in dramatically different directions over time, supporting the claim that initial structure does not determine long-term function.

•This aligns with the idea that partial incoherence or environmental fluctuation can give rise to different emergent outcomes, even from the same base.

•Example: Two nearly identical weather simulations can yield radically different forecasts after a few days, illustrating nonlinear divergence.

3. Fractals and Self-Organization

Core Insight: Fractal structures arise from simple, repeated rules but produce complex, self-similar forms across scales.

Relevance to Coherent Emergentism:

•Fractals demonstrate how complexity and pattern can emerge from minimal assumptions and local operations—supporting the theory’s emphasis on coherence as a generative filter.

•Small variations in initial structure can generate widely different forms that still retain internal coherence.

•Example: Natural forms like snowflakes, coastlines, or trees arise from simple laws of growth, yet no two are the same.

4. Category Theory and Structural Emergence

Core Insight: Category theory studies how mathematical structures relate through abstract mappings—emphasizing relationships over isolated entities.

Relevance to Coherent Emergentism:

•This aligns with the theory’s claim that reality is made of relationships, not just things.

•Two structurally similar objects can behave differently depending on how their relationships (morphisms) interact with larger systems.

•Example: The same abstract structure (such as a group or graph) can behave differently in different mathematical categories depending on the context and transformations.

5. Topology and Structural Transformation

Core Insight: Topology focuses on the properties of structures that remain invariant under continuous deformation.

Relevance to Coherent Emergentism:

•Emergence can be seen as the result of topological transformation: from base-level forms, new functional properties arise not by material change, but by structural reconfiguration.

•Example: A coffee mug and a doughnut are topologically equivalent, yet have completely different emergent functions.

6. Network Theory and Emergent Connectivity

Core Insight: Complex networks reveal how structure arises from connections between nodes—and how global behavior emerges from local interactions.

Relevance to Coherent Emergentism:

•Nearly identical networks can behave differently if just a few key connections are altered.

•Example: A social network with slightly different tie strengths can generate different influence patterns or consensus dynamics.

•This illustrates how emergent structure is context-sensitive, and coherence must be maintained at multiple scales.

7. Quantum Algebra and Probabilistic Structure

Core Insight: Quantum theory includes inherently probabilistic behaviors that cannot be precisely predicted but follow coherent statistical laws.

Relevance to Coherent Emergentism:

•This supports the view that coherence does not eliminate unpredictability—instead, it channels it.

•Emergent systems may arise precisely from probabilistic foundations that do not settle into one fixed form until a broader structural context is established.

•Example: Quantum decoherence results in emergent classical behavior when probabilistic superpositions collapse in structured environments.

Summary: How does mathematics support my theory?

Mathematical phenomena demonstrate the following:

1.Perfect consistency is not possible (Gödel’s incompleteness theorems).

2.The same initial conditions can lead to different outcomes (chaos theory and sensitivity to initial conditions).

3.Structures can develop emergently in different directions (fractals, network theory).

4.Mathematical entities are not merely independent, but defined by relations and functions (category theory).

5.The quantum level can create inconsistency, which is reflected in emergence (quantum algebras and quantum mechanics).

What does mathematics mean for my theory?

•Mathematics supports the idea that not all possible systems are predetermined.

•Mathematics provides a formal foundation for the idea that partial inconsistency can in fact be a beneficial feature for emergence.

•Beginning from the quantum level, random and indeterministic phenomena can influence which emergent mechanisms become selected into reality.

Thus, mathematical theories not only support my theory, but also show that a fully deterministic and fully consistent emergence is not possible — inconsistency is part of the structure of reality.

Coherent Emergentism as a New Scientific Paradigm

In an era when science is increasingly fragmented, specialized, and marked by a crisis of meaning, Coherent Emergentism could offer a viable alternative—not merely a metaphysical theory, but a new paradigm of thought that transcends disciplinary boundaries. The theory is based on the principle that only coherent, self-sustaining structures can persist. It provides a philosophical framework that may steer science toward unity, depth, and emergent meaning.

The following explores whether Coherent Emergentism could function as a new scientific paradigm in the sense described by Thomas Kuhn: a worldview that not only explains existing data better than its predecessors but also generates new questions, structures research, and unifies previously disconnected fields.

I. What Makes My Theory a Scientific Paradigm?

According to Thomas Kuhn, a scientific paradigm:

•Defines the fundamental assumptions about reality

•Determines which questions are meaningful

•Establishes research methods and standards

•Shapes how data is interpreted

By these criteria, Coherent Emergentism meets the requirements of a new paradigm:

•Ontological foundation: Reality consists of structural coherence; emergence is its manifestation.

•Epistemological strategy: Coherence and emergence guide research and verification.

•Interpretive unity: Subjective experience, complexity, consciousness, and value are not exceptions, but natural products of emergent coherence.

II. Coherent Emergentism as a Unifying Framework Across Scientific Disciplines

1. Physics

• Physical laws are not mere descriptions, but expressions of coherence in energy fields.

•Emergence unfolds through multi-layered stabilization of systems.

•Coherence explains why certain structures (atoms, conservation laws) persist.

•New perspectives:

◉Entropy is not only decay but the tension between incoherence and reordering.

◉Quantum entanglement is coherence across nonlocal scales.

2. Chemistry

•Molecular bonds and reaction paths are coherence attractors in energy-information space.

•The periodic table reflects progressively structured electron field coherence.

•Applications:

◉Catalysis as a coherence-enhancing process.

◉Understanding complex synthesis as emergent self-regulation.

3. Biology & Systems Biology

•Life is not a static essence, but a coherent, self-maintaining pattern in metabolism, signaling, and reproduction.

•The theory provides systems biology with a metaphysical foundation for holistic modeling.

•Insights:

◉Evolution as multi-layered emergence (genetic, neural, ecological).

◉Disease = breakdown of internal coherence; healing = reorganization.

◉Aging = loss of system-level coherence, not just degeneration.

4. Neuroscience & Consciousness Research

•Consciousness is the emergence of reflective coherence.

•The mind is not just neuro-mechanics, but an emergent product of integrated brain function.

•Research directions:

◉Consciousness as a threshold phenomenon: coherence achieved in brain networks.

◉Mental health = state of cognitive, emotional, and social coherence.

◉Attentional awareness as a fine-tuning loop of coherence.

5. Psychology

•Identity = emergent self-structure: coherence among beliefs, emotions, memories, and embodiment.

•Trauma = rupture of coherence; therapy = reintegration.

•The theory provides a new foundation for developmental and existential psychology.

6. Artificial Intelligence & Cognitive Science

•Coherent Emergentism enables a non-reductive framework for machine consciousness and cognition.

•Intelligence = capacity for coherent adaptation in a changing environment.

•Applications:

◉Design of emergent, adaptive, ethically bounded AI systems.

◉Development of coherence-seeking artificial behavior.

7. Ecology & Environmental Sciences

•Ecosystems = multi-layered coherence structures of life, energy flow, and feedback.

•Sustainability = maintaining coherence at the planetary level.

•Environmental crises = breakdowns in systemic interdependence.

•The theory supports ecoethical principles based on structural persistence.

8. Sociology, Culture & Economics

•Societies = emergent coherence fields structured by language, law, exchange, and collaboration.

•Economics = coherent flow of resources and human development.

•Cultural crises (meaning collapse, polarization) = coherence disruptions.

9. Education & Learning

•Learning = emergent construction of internal coherence from knowledge, experience, and agency.

•Curricula should be designed to support cognitive emergence, not just information transfer.

10. Ethics, Philosophy of Science & Metascience

•Coherent Emergentism enables a new metascience:

◉Truth = emergent coherence—not merely correspondence or formal compatibility.

◉Ethics = structural recognition of suffering, complexity, and responsibility within systems.

◉Scientific method = emergent system of coherence generation and testing.

III. New Questions Raised by the Theory

•What is the minimal condition under which coherence can arise in a chaotic system?

•Are coherence thresholds universal across complexity levels?

•Can systems be classified according to their coherence-generating capacity?

•What would coherent emergentist ethics look like in governance, AI, and ecosystems?

•Can consciousness evolve further through deliberate refinement of coherence?

IV. Conclusion: The Science of Coherent Emergence

Coherent Emergentism is not just a philosophical system. It may be a new grammar of reality—a paradigm from which we could understand everything from quantum physics to social collapse, from subjective suffering to ecosystem design.

Coherent Emergentism does not replace existing sciences. It integrates and deepens them.

When coherence is seen as the condition of persistence, and emergence as its natural expression, my theory provides a framework that could shape the future of science and thought—much as Newton shaped mechanics or Darwin shaped biology.

If reality is what coherently persists, then science must become the systematic study of emergent coherence.

This may be the paradigm that Coherent Emergentism offers to the world.

Postscript and Final Conclusion

Finally, it is important to emphasize that my theory is by no means complete, but requires further clarification and refinement—especially mathematically and physically. However, its basic idea and approach are clear. I have tried to extend them—especially coherence—as widely as possible in order to experiment with what the theory would look like as a whole. In this sense, it is more of an attempt to apply the principle of coherence and push it to its limits, and it is not meant to be understood as absolute truths that I myself would unshakably believe in. I also cannot assess or know whether my theory is ultimately true, and above all, I cannot do so regarding its physical and mathematical assumptions and applications. This task is left to others. My theory is, above all, a starting point for discussion—not a dogma that could not be challenged or developed. I therefore ask: if we take as a starting point what my theory assumes, could my conclusions be its natural outcome?

My theory is also, above all, a philosophical theory of everything—one that could answer metaphysical questions better than other metaphysical theories or scientific disciplines currently do. These include questions such as: “Why is there something?” and “How does this continue to develop and generate further complexity?” This is its most significant added value. My theory thus attempts to solve the mystery of reality—both its origin and its later development—on a philosophical level. However, scientific proof of my theory is not yet possible, even though I have extended it into the realm of science as well.

If, however, I still choose to follow the core ideas of my theory and apply them to everything else, the following things can be stated. The core idea of Coherent Emergentism can be summarized as follows: the individual parts of wholes may be reducible, and their individual properties can be explained through more basic principles. However, the interaction between those parts is not reducible in the same way, because it gives rise to new rules and structures that cannot be traced back to the properties of the parts alone. This is the foundational principle of Coherent Emergentism. Emergence arises from the order and interaction between parts, and the whole begins to influence the parts, creating new forms of causality. In final form: the parts are reducible—but their interaction is not.

If reality does not care how it functions and has no meta-level, then it is reasonable to conclude that my theory is the only possibility. My theory is the only framework in which reality contains the cause of itself. If reality is the cause of itself and has no meta-level of any kind, then what remains is that coherence is the reason for its existence—and coherence determines all further development. My theory is thus the only alternative, if we accept a radical minimization of assumptions. The problem with the meta-level is the infinite regress of explanations: we are always forced to explain the next meta-level, as long as these levels are external to the system and operate outside of it.

In light of current understanding, the theory of Coherent Emergentism is also a well-grounded proposal for a theory of reality. It is not impossible to think that in the future, science could discover one or more principles or mechanisms of coherence in action—even if probably not as a law of nature—which would further support my theory, concretize it, and could, at least in a certain sense, prove it empirically to be true. Perhaps the mechanisms of coherence are also different in different wholes—such as in quantum physics, physics, chemistry, and biology—and that is why they have not yet been discovered in all of them. This may also be because they are probably not laws of nature. It would thus be the task of mathematicians, physicists, and other scientists to develop models that support, model, and explain my theory—and thereby also prove it true within their respective fields.

Still, my theory currently exists at the intersection of philosophy and physics: it contains too much philosophy for physicists, and too much physics for philosophers. Yet it is precisely in this intersection that the theory draws its power. It does not only aim to unite previous metaphysical and physical theories—it also falsifies them: it shows that in the traditional sense, a so-called theory of everything cannot exist. Or rather: this could be that theory—not because it covers everything, but because it reveals the impossibility of covering everything. At the same time, it serves as a kind of meta-theory that explains what is happening behind other theories, and how they fit together.

A theory of everything can never be final, because humanity will always be capable of creating, for instance, new virtual realities that can be studied. New phenomena, new layers, and new emergent structures will continue to arise. Humanistic and societal theorizing will never end, because it evolves continuously with time, culture, and self-understanding. Perhaps even mathematics—which is often seen as immutable—is in some sense subject to evolution.

Reality does not care what humans think about it. But perhaps truth does. Perhaps truth is in some way related to how we experience the world, how we construct meaning, and how wholes influence their parts. Emergence is therefore not only a physical, but also an experiential and conceptual phenomenon.

We can justifiably assume that emergence is a real part of the world—especially in relation to consciousness and the brain. It is easy to imagine that precisely in these phenomena, the non-reductive nature of interaction is most clearly expressed. Therefore, we should take seriously our experiences of consciousness and emergence: they suggest that there is freedom in reality, that the whole affects the parts—and that this gives rise to a new kind of causality.

Emergence is not just a phenomenon, but also a possibility. A possibility that the world can always change for the better in ways we do not yet understand. A possibility that truth is not merely a return to basic units, but the living influence of the whole on its parts.

Bibliography

Tallberg, M. T. (2025-03-26). Coherent Emergentism – A Comprehensive Theory of Reality. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15090229

Tallberg, M. T. (2025-03-10). Coherent Emergentism and Humanity. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15000089

Tallberg, M. T. (2025-03-06). Coherent Emergentism – A Theory of Reality. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14981410

Tallberg, M. T. (2025-03-11). Extending Coherent Emergentism. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15005639

Tallberg, M. T. (2025-03-28). Coherent Emergentism and a Philosophy of Life. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15101419

Tallberg, M. T. (2025-03-11). Mathematics and Coherent Emergentism. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15005595

Tallberg, M. T. (2025-04-02). Minimization of External Assumptions and the Comprehensibility of a Coherent Reality. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15124000

Tallberg, M. T. (2025-04-02). The Ontology of Emergence in the Theory of Coherent Emergentism. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15123532

Tieteen termipankki. https://tieteentermipankki.fi/wiki/Filosofia. Accessed 2025-05-07.

I have used ChatGPT as an aid in producing this text. It has helped me apply the ideas of my theory to existing knowledge and edit my writing to make it more readable. It has also written some parts largely on my behalf, especially in the third and final part of the text. In addition, ChatGPT has specifically helped with the sections dealing with superposition, entanglement, the mechanism of coherence, entropy, gravity, and dark matter and energy—and in fact, has written those parts on my behalf. The English translation of the text was also originally made by ChatGPT.

I have also tested my ideas using DeepSeek and Grok, and based on the observations I made through them, I have added a few new ideas to my theory. Grok has also written the section dealing with the ontological nature of coherence. All other original and new ideas—and thus the theory itself—have, however, been developed and invented by me.