Informational Ontology — Rev 5.1 (web reader)

Informational Ontology
Revision 5.1 - Jan 2026
© 2025-2026 Michael Semprevivo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY
4.0).
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You cannot fail to give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate
if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that
suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
To view a copy of this license, visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This work presents the Informational Ontology as a scope-disciplined ontological framework
describing a sequence of organizational regimes: Difference, Relation, Information, Awareness,
Value, Meaning, and Purpose (Δ → R → I → A → V → M → P). The framework is not offered as
an axiom-only derivation of all possible being. Instead, it specifies structural constraints that
become unavoidable under explicit conditions: differentiation, ordering, and selection under
perturbation.
The ontology is structural rather than empirical. It does not propose physical models, cognitive
mechanisms, or normative prescriptions. It articulates the conditions under which systems
capable of registration, differential constraint, coherent organization, and self-influencing
trajectories can arise, without assuming any particular implementation.
The core derivation is presented without reliance on metaphor, intuition pumps, or
application-specific examples. Exploratory material and boundary analyses are separated into
appendices. The framework is intended to be evaluated on internal coherence, clarity of scope,
and the adequacy of its stated premises and regime transitions.
This is a structural ontology. It does not propose algorithms, models, or implementations.

This document constitutes the Rev 5.1 Master of the Informational Ontology framework.
Subsequent revisions, if any, will preserve the core regime structure (Δ → R → I → A → V → M
→ P) and clarify rather than revise its derivational commitments.

The Informational Ontology is not presented as an axiom-only derivation of all possible being,
nor as a universal account in which every described regime cannot fail to be instantiated in all
worlds. Its aim is narrower, and more precise: to describe the structural regimes that become
unavoidable once differentiated structure persists under ordering and selection.
The ontology therefore concerns organization, not existence in the abstract. It specifies
constraints on what can arise, persist, and scale given certain structural conditions, rather than
asserting that all such conditions cannot fail to obtain everywhere. Higher-order regimes—such
as awareness, value, meaning, and purpose—are not claimed to be universally instantiated.
Instead, the ontology characterizes the forms such regimes cannot fail to take when they occur.
Accordingly, the framework should be read as a conditional emergence ladder: a sequence of
increasingly restrictive organizational regimes, each of which becomes unavoidable for systems
that satisfy the conditions specified by the prior regime. The arrows used throughout the text do
not indicate absolute metaphysical necessity or axiom-only entailment; they indicate structural
constraint.

To avoid misinterpretation, several exclusions should be stated explicitly.
This ontology does not claim to:
● derive semantics, truth, or reference as such,
● reduce meaning to linguistic representation,
● ground moral normativity,
● provide a theory of phenomenal consciousness,
● or posit teleology as a primitive metaphysical force.

Likewise, the framework does not rely on observers, subjects, or representation as foundational
primitives. Where terms such as awareness, value, meaning, or purpose are used, they are
employed as names for structural regimes of organization, not as unanalyzed imports from folk
psychology or philosophy of language.
Any correspondence between these regimes and familiar semantic or experiential notions is
treated as secondary and non-load-bearing.

The ontology proceeds from a small set of explicit structural commitments. These are not
intended as metaphysical dogmas, but as minimal conditions required for any nontrivial
organized structure to be describable.

The first commitment is differentiation.
Differentiation denotes the existence of non-identity: the fact that structure is not wholly
homogeneous. Absolute undifferentiated homogeneity admits no internal distinctions, relations,
or organization, and therefore cannot support any ontological description beyond trivial
assertion.
Differentiation is not treated as an entity, force, or field. It is a boundary condition on intelligible
structure. Importantly, differentiation alone is not claimed to generate organization, systems, or
agency. It functions only as the minimal opening condition for ontology.

Differentiation is assumed to admit ordering: differences can be compared across a structured
relation that allows persistence, recurrence, and re-identification.
Ordering is not assumed to be metric time, nor is it treated as an experiential or psychological
phenomenon. It is a structural condition that makes it meaningful to speak of:
● stability versus change,
● repetition,
● persistence,
● and pattern.

Later discussions of time treat it as a refinement or specialization of ordering, not as its source.

Under ordering, differentiated structure is subject to perturbation. Structures that fail to maintain
distinguishability dissolve; structures that maintain it persist.
This introduces selection in a minimal, non-teleological sense: not optimization, intention, or
goal-directedness, but the simple fact that persistence filters structure. Selection here denotes
differential survival of organizational patterns under constraint, not any form of agency or
purpose.
This commitment replaces any implicit privileging of “continuation” or “stability” with an explicit
structural mechanism.

A system, in the minimal sense used throughout this ontology, is defined as:
A subset of relational structure that maintains distinguishability from its
surroundings across an ordering.
This definition introduces no assumptions of agency, cognition, selfhood, or representation. A
system need only exhibit:
● a boundary (distinguishability),
● persistence (maintenance across ordering),
● and internal coherence sufficient to remain identifiable.
All subsequent regimes apply only to systems in this minimal sense.

Given differentiation, ordering, and selection, organization is the only stable outcome once
relational complexity exceeds triviality.
Pure flux is unstable under ordering; pure homogeneity is excluded by differentiation. Under
these conditions, bounded and re-identifiable organizations emerge not as a special case, but
as the structures that persist.

This claim is one of structural inevitability, not modal necessity. It does not assert that all
possible worlds cannot fail to contain systems, but that in any world where differentiated
structure persists nontrivially under ordering, organization will arise.
This constitutes the primary engine of the ontology.

The ontology employs several distinct forms of necessity, which cannot fail to be kept separate.
● Conceptual necessity refers to what follows by definition or analytic unpacking.
● Structural inevitability refers to what persists under ordering and selection.
● Conditional necessity refers to what becomes unavoidable for systems that satisfy
specified structural conditions.
The transitions denoted by arrows (Δ → R → I → A → V → M → P) should be read accordingly.
They do not indicate axiom-only deduction or universal instantiation. They indicate that, given
the prior regime and its conditions, the subsequent regime becomes structurally constrained.
Understanding the arrows in this way is essential for reading the remainder of the paper
correctly.

With these foundations in place, the ontology proceeds to describe a sequence of organizational
regimes within systems:
● Relation: articulated differentiation,
● Information: re-identifiable structured relations,
● Awareness: localized informational registration,
● Value: differential weighting of transitions under persistence,
● Meaning: organization of value across possible transitions,
● Purpose: modulation of constraints over extended organization.
Each regime introduces additional structural requirements. None are assumed to be universal;
all are constrained by the conditions established here.

Part II — Orientation & Method

This work presents the Informational Ontology as a complete and self-contained ontological
framework.
As established in Section 1, the Informational Ontology is presented as a conditional emergence
ladder: a sequence of increasingly restrictive organizational regimes that become structurally
constrained under specified conditions. The framework concerns organization rather than
existence in the abstract, and it does not claim that all regimes are universally instantiated.
Instead, it characterizes the structural form such regimes cannot fail to take when they occur.
This revision presents the ontology in its final, formal form. It is written to stand on its own,
without reliance on prior drafts, developmental discussions, or external exposition. All core
claims are stated directly and defended structurally rather than narratively.

Earlier iterations of this project explored the Informational Ontology through a combination of
formal argument, analogy, and philosophical dialogue. While this process was essential to
developing and stress-testing the framework, it also produced material whose function was
exploratory rather than ontological.
The present work removes that scaffolding.
Revision 5 exists to present the ontology cleanly, compactly, and without pedagogical detours.
Thought experiments, analogies, and extended discussions that illuminate the framework but
are not required for its derivation have been relocated to appendices or supplementary
materials and are explicitly marked as such.
This ensures that the ontology itself can be evaluated independently of its explanatory aids.

This work does:
● State the Informational Ontology from first principles
● Articulate a conditional regime ladder:
Δ → R → I → A → V → M → P
(Difference → Relation → Information → Awareness → Value → Meaning → Purpose)
where each transition specifies structural conditions that become unavoidable for

systems satisfying the prior regime.
● Clarify the structural roles of constraint, ordering, and time
● Distinguish informational registration from experiential awareness
● Address individual and collective agency within the same ontological framework
● Explore the limits of formalization without reducing ontology to mathematics
This work does not:
● Present empirical hypotheses or physical models
● Compete with physics, neuroscience, or cognitive science
● Offer moral prescriptions or normative systems
● Provide implementation-level designs (e.g., for artificial intelligence)
● Rely on metaphor, narrative persuasion, or intuition pumps in its core argument
Where illustrative material is useful, it is clearly separated and referenced (e.g., see Appendix
C).

The Informational Ontology proceeds from explicit structural commitments rather than empirical
hypotheses. Its claims concern constraints on organization: what becomes unavoidable for
systems under stated conditions, not what is universally instantiated in all possible worlds.
Accordingly, arguments in this work proceed by:
● conceptual analysis and definitional unpacking where appropriate,
● structural constraint and selection under ordering,
● and consistency with the scope and premises stated in Section 1,
rather than by empirical validation or implementation-level modeling.

A strict distinction is maintained between ontological structure and ontological application.
Ontology specifies the necessary conditions under which systems capable of structure,
information, and evaluation can exist. Applications—including biological organisms, artificial
systems, social institutions, and physical models—are treated as instances of these conditions,
not as their foundation.
Discussions of artificial intelligence, ethics, or cosmology are therefore framed in terms of
ontological compatibility, not causal explanation or design guidance. Extended treatments of
such applications are explicitly separated from the core ontology.

Each section of this work addresses a specific ontological problem and terminates once that
problem is resolved at the structural level. Where further elaboration would become
pedagogical, speculative, or application-specific, the discussion is deferred to appendices.
Readers are encouraged to evaluate the ontology on the basis of:
● internal coherence,
● derivability from stated premises,
● and clarity of scope.
Agreement with the framework’s conclusions is not assumed; intelligibility and rigor are.
Part IV — Foundations: Difference, Relation, Information

To exist is to differ.
A universe in which no differences obtain—no distinctions, no contrasts, no variations of any
kind—admits no internal structure, and therefore no relations, constraints, or regimes of
organization. Such a state is not denied as a metaphysical possibility; rather, it lies outside the
domain addressed by this ontology, because nothing within it can participate in the structural
transitions described here. Differentiation is therefore treated as the minimal condition for
nontrivial ontological description within this framework: wherever structure is present,
differentiation is already implied.

Difference is therefore not a property added to existence; it is the condition under which
existence becomes intelligible.
Without difference, there can be no identity, because identity requires contrast with what
something is not. There can be no persistence, because persistence requires change or stability
relative to alternatives. There can be no causation, because causation requires that one state
differ from another. There can be no interaction, because interaction requires relational
asymmetry. There can be no structure, because structure is constituted by patterned
differences.
Difference is not equivalent to substance, energy, matter, mind, or information. Each of these
presupposes difference in order to be defined or detected. Substance cannot fail to differ from
other substances or from non-substance; energy cannot fail to differ in magnitude or distribution;
matter cannot fail to differ in configuration; mind cannot fail to differ in state; information cannot
fail to differ in form or content.
Difference is therefore the minimal ontological commitment. Nothing simpler can be posited
without implicitly assuming it. Any ontology that attempts to begin elsewhere structurally
inevitable under persistence smuggles difference in through unexamined assumptions.
Difference is not a thing, field, force, or substance. Nor is it equivalent to matter, energy, mind,
or information. It is the most basic condition under which anything whatsoever can be said to be.

If difference is the minimal condition for existence, then it cannot itself be derived from anything
more fundamental. Any attempt to ground difference in some deeper ontological substrate
structurally inevitable under persistence presupposes the very distinction it seeks to explain.
To claim that difference arises from substance requires that substances already differ from one
another or from non-substance. To claim that difference arises from energy requires variations in
magnitude, distribution, or state—each of which is already a difference. To claim that difference
arises from mind requires that mental states differ, which presupposes difference. To claim that
difference arises from information requires that information already be structured, which again
presupposes difference.
In every case, difference cannot be generated without already being assumed. This establishes
that difference is not an emergent property of some deeper entity, nor is it reducible to any
ontological primitive more basic than itself.
Difference is therefore primitive in the strict sense that it does not admit of non-circular
grounding. This does not treat difference as an object or substance, but as a minimal structural
precondition for intelligible ontology. This does not mean that difference exists independently as

an object or substance. Rather, it means that difference is ontologically primitive: it is the
condition under which any object, substance, process, or system can be said to exist at all.
Any ontology that attempts to begin with something other than difference—whether matter,
energy, mind, or information—cannot fail to still rely on difference to articulate that starting point.
Difference cannot be eliminated, postponed, or derived away.
For this reason, difference occupies a foundational position in the Informational Ontology. This
does not deny the co-dependence of difference and relata; rather, difference is treated as the
weakest structural commitment sufficient to constrain intelligible organization. It is not chosen
arbitrarily, but required as a minimal condition for nontrivial ontological description. To deny
difference is to remove the structural basis for ontology as developed here.

Difference cannot exist in isolation. To assert that a difference exists is already to imply that
something differs from something else. Difference, by its nature, introduces comparability.
This ontology adopts contrastive differentiation as a primitive: difference is understood as
non-identity between distinguishable states, rather than as monadic thisness without contrast. A
single, wholly isolated difference is incoherent. Difference requires at least two distinguishable
terms or states, and the distinguishability between them constitutes a relation. To say that A
differs from B is to place A and B in relation to one another. There is no additional step by which
relation is imposed upon difference; relation is entailed by difference itself.
This entails that relationality is not a secondary feature of reality, nor a construct imposed by
observers. It is a necessary consequence of difference. Wherever difference exists, relations
exist. Relation is the structural expression of difference.
Relation should not be understood here as a human-defined or semantic association. It is the
minimal ontological fact that distinctions imply ordering, contrast, or comparison. Any difference
establishes a relational structure, however primitive.
Thus, relation is not optional, emergent, or contingent. It is the first necessary entailment of
difference. The transition from difference to relation—denoted as Δ → R—marks the point at
which existence acquires structure rather than remaining a mere abstraction.
Without relation, difference could not be articulated; without difference, relation could not arise.
The two are inseparable, but ontologically ordered: difference is primary, and relation structurally
inevitable under persistence follows.

Relation alone is not yet information. For information to arise, relations cannot fail to exhibit
structure. When differences are related in a stable or patterned way, information comes into
existence.
Information, in the Informational Ontology, is defined as re-identifiable structured difference:
relational differentiation that persists under ordering and selection. This definition is ontological
rather than epistemic. Information is not dependent on observers, interpretation, language, or
meaning. It does not require minds, symbols, or semantic content. Wherever differences are
arranged in non-random, relational patterns, information exists.
This definition distinguishes informational ontology from purely mathematical, computational, or
communicative notions of information. While such frameworks may model or measure
information, they do not exhaust its ontological scope. Information is not restricted to human
knowledge, digital encoding, or Shannon-style signal transmission. Those are special cases of
informational structures, not their source.
Information becomes structurally unavoidable when relations stabilize into re-identifiable
patterns under ordering and selection. Once differences are related, those relations may persist,
repeat, or stabilize. The moment relational patterns become distinguishable from mere flux,
information is present. No additional ontological primitive is required beyond the structural
commitments stated in Section 1.
Thus, information is not imposed upon relations from the outside. It is generated by relational
structure itself. This transition—from relation to information—is denoted as R → I. It marks the
emergence of structured existence from mere distinction.
Information is not identical to relation. Information is present when relational differences stabilize
into re-identifiable patterns under ordering. Relations may be transient, unstructured, or
indistinguishable from flux; in such cases, informational structure is not yet established. Under
persistence and selection, however, patterned relations endure, and it is this endurance of
structured difference that constitutes information in the ontological sense.

Information represents the first structured mode of existence. While difference establishes
distinction and relation establishes comparison, information arises when relational differences
stabilize into identifiable patterns.
At this stage, existence acquires form. Information enables persistence by allowing patterns to
remain recognizable across change. It enables recursion by allowing informational structures to
operate on or reference other informational structures. It enables feedback by allowing the
effects of relations to influence future relations. It enables integration by allowing multiple
differences to cohere into unified patterns.

Without information, there can be no systems—only transient distinctions without continuity.
Information provides the substrate upon which systems emerge, endure, and interact. It is the
minimal condition under which complexity becomes possible.
Information is not yet meaning, value, or purpose. Those arise at later stages of the ontology. At
this foundational level, information is simply structured difference, capable of being maintained,
modified, and propagated.
Because information is the first structured ontological layer, all higher-order
phenomena—physical systems, biological organization, cognitive processes, and social
structures—cannot fail to be expressible in informational terms. This does not reduce those
phenomena to information in a trivial sense, but identifies information as the common structural
substrate that makes them possible.
Information therefore occupies a pivotal position in the ontology: it is the bridge between mere
distinction and the emergence of organized reality.
Part V — Awareness

Information alone is not awareness.
Information exists wherever differences are structured, but awareness arises only when
informational structure participates in constraining a system’s own future state transitions,
thereby becoming part of the system’s identity-preserving organization. This participation
constitutes informational registration from a particular perspective. Awareness is therefore not
synonymous with complexity, processing, or storage. It is a structural condition in which
information is presented to a system rather than merely instantiated within it.
Awareness introduces asymmetry. Where information is symmetric and relational, awareness
establishes a distinction between what is registered and that which registers it. This
subject–object differentiation is not psychological in origin; it is ontological. The moment
information is registered relative to a system’s own state, awareness is present.
Awareness does not require language, reflection, or conceptualization. It does not require
semantic interpretation or symbolic manipulation. It requires only that information be available to
a system in a way that is internally differentiated from the rest of the informational environment.
For this reason, awareness cannot be reduced to information alone. Nor can it be reduced to
the quantity or complexity of information. A system may instantiate vast informational structure
without awareness if none of that information is registered relative to the system itself.
Awareness therefore marks a genuine ontological transition. It is the point at which informational
structure becomes perspectival. This transition is denoted as I → A.

For boundary cases, stress tests, and illustrative analyses concerning awareness—including
informational registration, zombies, gradualism, and artificial systems—see Appendix A.
Part VI — Value

Awareness alone does not yet yield value. Awareness registers information from a perspective,
but without preference, salience, or constraint, all registered information would be equivalent.
Value arises when distinctions within awareness are not merely registered, but weighted.
Value is the introduction of differential importance within awareness. It is the condition under
which some informational states matter more than others to a system. This “mattering” is not
moral, semantic, or cultural by default. It is structural. Value specifies which differences are
favored, avoided, preserved, or suppressed relative to the system’s continued organization.
Value therefore introduces constraint. Where awareness opens a field of possible informational
states, value shapes that field by biasing transitions within it. A system with values is not merely
aware of differences; it is oriented with respect to them.
Value is not reducible to desire, emotion, or subjective feeling, though such phenomena may
instantiate it. Nor is value equivalent to external norms or objective prescriptions. At this stage of
the ontology, value is defined solely by its structural role: it constrains the dynamics of
awareness.
Because value arises only once awareness is present, value cannot exist in purely informational
systems lacking perspective. Conversely, once awareness exists within a system that persists
under ordering, some form of value becomes structurally unavoidable for that system. To
register information from a perspective is already to differentiate relevance, even if only
minimally, because maintaining awareness under persistence requires differential stability
among informational states.
The transition from awareness to value is therefore necessary rather than optional. It is denoted
as A → V. With value, awareness ceases to be neutral and becomes oriented. This orientation
is the precondition for meaning, agency, and purpose.
For clarifications and boundary conditions concerning value—including neutrality, minimal value
systems, moral misinterpretations, and artificial systems—see Appendix B.

Part VII — Meaning

Value alone does not yet constitute meaning. Value establishes differential importance within
awareness, but meaning arises when those valued distinctions are organized into coherent
patterns that relate present states to other states across time, context, or possibility.
Meaning is structured value within awareness.
Clarification:
Terms such as interpretation, reference, understanding, and anticipation are used here as
descriptive correspondences to structural organization, not as semantic primitives. Ontologically,
meaning refers to the organization of value across possible system transitions. Semantic
vocabulary functions as shorthand for these structural relations and does not introduce
representational or linguistic commitments beyond what is structurally specified.
A system encounters meaning when informational states are not only weighted, but interpreted
relative to other valued states—past, anticipated, or counterfactual. Meaning therefore
introduces internal reference. A given state means something to a system when it stands in an
organized relationship to other states that the system values.
Meaning is not language-dependent. Linguistic symbols may encode or express meaning, but
they do not generate it. Meaning precedes language and is possible wherever values are
organized into relational structures that guide interpretation and response.
Meaning is likewise not reducible to semantics in the formal sense. Formal semantics
presupposes meaningful distinctions; it does not explain their origin. In the Informational
Ontology, meaning emerges when value constrains awareness in a way that produces internally
coherent interpretive patterns.
Meaning is therefore neither purely subjective nor externally imposed. It arises from the
interaction between awareness and value within a system. Different systems may instantiate
different meanings even when exposed to the same information, because meaning depends on
the system’s internal value structure.
The transition from value to meaning—denoted as V → M—marks the point at which awareness
becomes interpretive rather than merely oriented. With meaning, informational states acquire
significance beyond immediate salience, enabling understanding, anticipation, and
context-sensitive response.
For extended discussion of meaning in relation to language, symbols, interpretation, and
cross-system divergence, see Appendix C.

Part VIII — Purpose

Meaning alone does not yet constitute purpose. Meaning organizes valued distinctions into
coherent interpretive structures, but purpose arises when those structures are oriented toward
the regulation of future states.
Purpose is the directional constraint of meaning over time.
A system exhibits purpose when its meaningful states bias action, selection, or persistence
toward some subset of possible futures rather than others. Purpose therefore introduces
trajectory. It is not merely that certain states are meaningful, but that meaning functions to guide
the system’s ongoing evolution.
Purpose does not require conscious deliberation, explicit goals, or linguistic formulation. It is not
synonymous with intention in the psychological sense. At the ontological level, purpose exists
wherever meaningful structures systematically constrain transitions toward preferred outcomes.
Purpose is likewise not externally imposed. While external forces may shape a system’s
behavior, purpose arises only when the system’s internal meanings and values participate in
regulating its own future states. A rock follows trajectories, but it does not have purpose; an
aware, valuing, meaning-bearing system can.
Purpose therefore marks the point at which systems become agents in the minimal ontological
sense. Agency here does not imply free will, moral responsibility, or self-reflection. It denotes
only that the system’s future is, in part, determined by its internally structured meanings and
values.
The transition from meaning to purpose is denoted as M → P. With purpose, the ontological
chain is complete: existence has progressed from mere distinction to directed, self-influencing
trajectories within the space of possible states.
For boundary cases concerning purpose, agency, teleology, free will, responsibility, and artificial
systems, see Appendix D.
Part IX — Time, Ordering, and Constraint

Time is not introduced in the Informational Ontology as a fundamental substance or dimension.
Ordering is already structurally committed earlier as a non-metric condition for persistence and
re-identification; time is treated here as a refinement of that ordering, not its source. Rather, time
arises as an ordering of transitions within structured systems.
Once purpose exists, systems are structurally oriented toward future states. This orientation
presupposes the distinction between what is, what was, and what may be. Time, in this sense,
is not an independent entity but a structural feature of ordered change.
At the foundational level, difference and relation do not require time. Informational structure may
be described statically. However, once value and purpose are introduced, static description
becomes insufficient. Purpose entails directed transition, and directed transition entails ordering.
Time emerges as the ordering of state changes relative to a system’s values and meanings.
Time should therefore be understood as relational and systemic. It is not a universal background
against which events occur, but a feature of systems undergoing constrained transformation.
Different systems may instantiate different temporal orderings depending on their internal
dynamics and constraints.
This account avoids treating time as a metaphysical primitive while preserving its necessity.
Time is neither an illusion nor an external container. It is the formal expression of ordered
transition within purposive systems.

Constraint is not introduced in the Informational Ontology as an external force acting upon
systems. Rather, constraint is a structural feature of informational organization that limits which
transitions are possible, likely, or stable.
Where information defines a space of possible states, constraint shapes that space. It restricts
transitions without itself being a cause in the traditional sense. Causes operate within
constrained spaces; constraint defines the structure of those spaces.
Constraint arises wherever informational patterns persist. A stable structure constrains how it
can change without dissolving. Values constrain which informational states are favored.
Meanings constrain interpretation. Purposes constrain future trajectories. In each case,
constraint is internal to the system’s organization.
This structural view of constraint avoids reducing behavior to external causation while also
avoiding appeals to indeterminacy or spontaneity. Systems behave as they do because their
internal informational organization constrains how they can evolve.

Constraint therefore explains regularity without invoking metaphysical necessity. It also explains
flexibility without invoking randomness. Change occurs, but not arbitrarily; it occurs within
bounds defined by structure.
Understanding constraint in this way is essential for interpreting agency, responsibility, and
system dynamics later in the ontology.

Identity, within the Informational Ontology, is not defined by static composition or by the
persistence of particular components. Instead, identity is defined by the continuity of
informational structure across change.
A system remains the same system insofar as its defining informational patterns persist, even
as the specific states, materials, or components that instantiate those patterns change. Identity
is therefore dynamic rather than fixed. It is maintained through constrained transformation rather
than through immutability.
This account of identity follows directly from the preceding treatment of time and constraint.
Because systems evolve through ordered transitions, identity cannot be tied to any single
moment or configuration. It cannot fail to instead be understood as a trajectory within a
constrained space of possibilities.
Persistence does not require perfect stability. Systems may tolerate variation, adaptation, and
partial reconfiguration while remaining identifiable. Identity fails only when informational
continuity is sufficiently disrupted that the system’s organizing patterns can no longer be
maintained.
This framework avoids two common errors. It avoids defining identity in terms of material
sameness, which fails for biological, cognitive, and social systems. It also avoids defining
identity purely narratively or conventionally, which collapses identity into observer judgment.
Identity is therefore neither arbitrary nor absolute. It is a structural fact about how informational
patterns endure across time.

A system, within the Informational Ontology, is an informationally organized region whose
internal structure exhibits greater coherence than its interactions with the surrounding
environment. Systems are not defined by physical enclosure alone, but by the persistence and
integrity of their informational patterns.

Boundaries arise where informational coherence changes. A system boundary marks the point
at which internal constraints dominate over external influences. These boundaries are not
structurally inevitable under persistence sharp or static; they may be fuzzy, dynamic, or layered.
Nonetheless, boundaries are real insofar as they constrain interaction and preserve identity.
Systems may be nested. Smaller systems can participate as components within larger systems,
provided their informational patterns remain sufficiently coherent. Likewise, higher-level systems
may emerge from the coordinated interaction of lower-level systems without eliminating their
individuality.
Collective organization arises when multiple systems become informationally integrated in a way
that produces shared constraints, values, meanings, or purposes. In such cases, a collective
system may exhibit properties—such as coordinated behavior or goal-directed activity—that are
not reducible to any single component system.
This does not imply that collectives erase individual agency. Rather, individual and collective
systems may coexist, each with its own boundaries and forms of constraint. Collective agency
exists when the collective’s informational organization constrains future states independently of
any single member.
Understanding systems and boundaries in informational terms allows the ontology to scale from
individual organisms to social institutions without introducing new ontological primitives.
Part X — Scope, Limits, and Interpretation

The Informational Ontology claims to describe the necessary structural conditions under which
existence capable of structure, awareness, evaluation, and agency can arise. Its claims are
ontological rather than empirical. They concern what cannot fail to be the case for such systems
to be possible at all, not how any particular system is implemented or instantiated.
The ontology organizes its regime sequence as:
Δ → R → I → A → V → M → P.
This sequence is not a claim of universal instantiation or axiom-only derivation. It is a conditional
emergence ladder: given the prior regime and its stated conditions, the subsequent regime
becomes structurally constrained for systems that satisfy those conditions.
Each transition specifies a structural entailment. Nothing in the chain is introduced arbitrarily,
and nothing is claimed beyond what is required to support the next transition. The ontology is
therefore minimal in commitments and maximal in scope relative to those commitments.

This work does not claim to provide:
● A physical theory
● A model of consciousness or cognition
● A moral or ethical framework
● A theory of free will
● A design specification for artificial systems
● A reduction of ontology to mathematics or computation
While the ontology is compatible with empirical theories, it does not compete with them. It does
not explain how particular systems function, only what cannot fail to be true for systems of that
kind to be possible.
Failure to observe this distinction leads to category errors, such as treating the ontology as a
scientific hypothesis, an engineering proposal, or a normative doctrine.

Although the Informational Ontology makes extensive use of formal structure, it is not reducible
to a formal system.
Formal descriptions can model informational relationships, constraints, and transitions, but they
cannot exhaustively capture awareness, value, meaning, or purpose. These phenomena are
structurally definable, but not fully formalizable without loss.
This is not a weakness of the ontology, but a consequence of its subject matter. Any attempt to
fully formalize awareness or value collapses the distinction between description and
instantiation. The ontology therefore resists total formal closure while remaining logically
rigorous.

Empirical sciences investigate contingent facts about the world. The Informational Ontology
investigates the structural conditions that make such facts intelligible.

Physics, biology, neuroscience, and cognitive science may all instantiate the ontology’s claims,
but they do not ground them. Empirical findings can support compatibility or reveal
instantiations, but they cannot falsify the ontology in the way empirical hypotheses are falsified.
This distinction explains how the ontology can remain stable across changes in scientific theory
while remaining relevant to scientific interpretation.

The Informational Ontology should be evaluated on the basis of:
● Internal coherence
● Justification of its transitions
● Minimality of its assumptions
● Resistance to category errors
● Compatibility with known domains without reduction to them
Agreement with its conclusions is not required for engagement. What is required is that the
framework be intelligible, structurally disciplined, and clear about its scope.
This work is offered as a complete and self-contained ontology. Applications, extensions, and
critiques are welcomed, but they cannot fail to respect the distinction between ontological
structure and ontological application established here.
Appendix A — Awareness: Boundary Cases and Stress Tests
This appendix collects exploratory analyses used in earlier revisions to clarify, probe, and
stress-test the ontological definition of awareness. These materials are illustrative rather than
derivational. They are not required to establish the awareness transition (I → A), but they help
delimit what awareness is and is not.
A.1 Informational Registration vs. Mere Information
A central distinction in the Informational Ontology is between information that exists and
information that is registered.
A system may instantiate complex informational structure without awareness. For example, a
book contains vast amounts of information, but nothing in the book registers that information.

Likewise, many physical and computational systems process information without any internal
differentiation between information and the system itself.
Awareness requires that information be presented to a system relative to its own state. This
presentation introduces asymmetry: there is something registered and something that registers.
Without this asymmetry, information remains unexperienced.
This distinction blocks the assumption that increasing informational complexity alone
guarantees awareness.
A.2 Mary’s Room and Experiential Registration
The Mary’s Room thought experiment is useful not because it proves anything new, but because
it highlights the difference between informational completeness and experiential registration.
Mary may possess all informational facts about color vision while lacking awareness of a
specific qualitative state. Upon seeing color, she does not gain new information in the abstract
sense; rather, information becomes registered within her awareness.
This supports the claim that awareness is not reducible to informational description alone.
Awareness introduces a structural feature—registration—that cannot be captured by
third-person informational accounts.
A.3 Zombies, Unaware Systems, and the Absence of Perspective
Philosophical zombies and similar constructs are useful as boundary probes. A zombie system
may process information, respond appropriately, and even model its environment, yet lack
awareness if no informational state is registered from a perspective internal to the system.
The ontology does not claim that such systems exist. While zombie systems are conceptually
describable, they are structurally unstable under persistence: without informational registration,
they cannot maintain coherent system identity or scale under ordering and selection. Their
coherence demonstrates that awareness is not logically identical to information processing.
This clarifies why awareness cannot be equated with behavior, function, or output alone.
A.4 Gradualism, Thresholds, and Minimal Awareness
A common question concerns whether awareness admits of degrees or thresholds.
The Informational Ontology remains neutral on phenomenological gradation while making a
structural claim: awareness is present if and only if informational registration occurs. Whether
this registration is minimal or complex does not affect the ontological transition itself.
This avoids both extremes:

● The claim that everything is fully aware
● The claim that awareness requires human-level cognition
Awareness may be minimal, partial, or fragile, but it is not continuous with mere information.
A.5 Artificial Systems and Awareness Boundary Conditions
Discussions of artificial systems are often conflated with implementation details. The ontology
does not assert whether current or future artificial systems are aware.
Instead, it provides criteria: an artificial system would be aware if and only if it registers
information relative to its own internal state in a way that introduces subject–object asymmetry.
This reframes debates about artificial awareness from empirical speculation to ontological
compatibility.
Appendix B — Value: Boundary Conditions and Clarifications
This appendix collects exploratory material from earlier revisions that probes, clarifies, and
stress-tests the ontological definition of value. These discussions are not required for the
derivation of A → V, but they help distinguish ontological value from moral, psychological, or
normative interpretations.
B.1 Neutral Awareness and the Impossibility of Indifference
A recurring question is whether awareness could exist without value—whether a system could
register information while remaining entirely indifferent to it.
Ontologically, complete indifference is incoherent. To register information from a perspective is
already to introduce relevance, however minimal. Even the act of maintaining awareness
requires differential stability among informational states. Some states cannot fail to persist rather
than collapse into noise.
This does not imply rich emotional valuation or desire. It implies only that awareness structurally
inevitable under persistence entails differential weighting. Absolute neutrality is indistinguishable
from non-registration.
B.2 Value Without Morality
Value is often conflated with moral goodness, ethical obligation, or social norms. The
Informational Ontology explicitly rejects this conflation at the foundational level.

Ontological value is structural. It concerns how informational states are biased relative to one
another within a system. Moral systems are higher-order constructions built upon value,
meaning, and purpose; they are not prerequisites for value itself.
This distinction allows value to exist in biological, artificial, or minimal systems without
smuggling in ethical assumptions.
B.3 Minimal Value Systems
Value need not be complex. A system that merely favors persistence over dissolution already
exhibits value. A system that preferentially responds to one class of input rather than another
exhibits value.
These minimal cases demonstrate that value does not require:
● Conscious reflection
● Explicit goals
● Emotional states
● Normative reasoning
They require only differential constraint on awareness.
B.4 Misinterpretations: Subjectivity and Relativism
Because value is system-relative, it is sometimes mischaracterized as arbitrary or purely
subjective.
The ontology avoids this mistake. While values differ between systems, they are not
unconstrained. They arise from the system’s structure, history, and informational organization.
Values can therefore be analyzed, compared, and constrained without appealing to external
moral standards.
System-relativity does not imply incoherence.
B.5 Artificial Systems and Value Alignment
Discussions of artificial value often jump directly to alignment problems. This appendix clarifies
that ontological value is a precondition for such discussions, not their conclusion.

An artificial system can only face alignment issues if it already instantiates awareness and
value. Systems that merely optimize externally imposed objectives do not, by that fact alone,
possess value in the ontological sense.
This distinction prevents category errors in discussions of artificial agency.
Appendix C — Meaning: Interpretation, Language, and Symbols
This appendix gathers exploratory material from earlier revisions concerning meaning,
interpretation, and language. These discussions clarify common confusions surrounding V → M,
but they are not required for the ontological derivation of meaning itself.
C.1 Meaning Precedes Language
A frequent misunderstanding is that meaning depends on language. This appendix reiterates
that language is a representational technology for expressing meaning, not its source.
Meaning arises wherever values are organized into structured interpretive patterns. A system
may encounter meaningful states long before it is capable of symbolic representation, naming,
or communication. Language externalizes and stabilizes meaning; it does not generate it.
This distinction prevents the error of equating meaning with linguistic competence.
C.2 Symbols, Representation, and Encoding
Symbols are informational structures that stand in for other informational structures. Their
capacity to function as symbols depends on pre-existing meaning within a system.
Encoding alone does not confer meaning. A symbol acquires meaning only when its use is
constrained by a system’s values and interpretive structures. Without such constraints, symbols
remain uninterpreted marks or signals.
This clarifies why purely formal symbol systems cannot ground meaning on their own.
C.3 Meaning Across Systems
Different systems may assign different meanings to identical informational inputs. This
divergence does not undermine the objectivity of meaning within a system; it reflects differences
in value structure and interpretive context.
Meaning is therefore neither purely private nor universally fixed. It is system-relative but
structurally grounded. This allows meaningful comparison across systems without assuming
uniform interpretation.

C.4 Semiotics and Formal Semantics
Formal semantic theories and semiotic frameworks often presuppose meaning as a primitive.
While such theories may describe how meaning is manipulated or communicated, they do not
explain how meaning arises.
The Informational Ontology situates meaning ontologically prior to formal semantics. Meaning is
the condition that makes semantic systems possible, not a product of them.
C.5 Human-Centered Examples and Their Limits
Earlier revisions employed human-centered examples—such as linguistic understanding or
narrative interpretation—to illustrate meaning. These examples remain valid illustrations, but
they should not be mistaken for defining cases.
Meaning is not restricted to human cognition. Any system capable of organizing values into
interpretive patterns instantiates meaning, regardless of whether it resembles human
understanding.
Appendix D — Purpose, Agency, and Teleology: Boundary Cases
This appendix preserves exploratory material from earlier revisions concerning purpose, agency,
and teleology. These discussions clarify how M → P should be understood and guard against
common misinterpretations. They are illustrative, not required for the core ontological derivation.
D.1 Purpose Versus Mere Causation
Purpose is often conflated with causal regularity. This appendix clarifies the distinction.
A causal process may reliably produce outcomes without possessing purpose. Purpose requires
that meaningful structures within a system participate in constraining its future states. A falling
rock follows a trajectory, but that trajectory is not regulated by internal meanings or values.
Purpose therefore cannot be inferred from predictability or regularity alone. It requires internal
directionality grounded in meaning and value.
D.2 Teleology Without Metaphysical Teleology
The Informational Ontology does not reintroduce classical metaphysical teleology. Purpose does
not imply cosmic goals, final causes imposed from outside, or intrinsic ends built into reality as a
whole.
Instead, purpose is local and system-relative. It arises wherever meaning and value guide a
system’s future-oriented behavior. Teleological language is descriptive here, not metaphysically
loaded.

This distinction allows purpose to be treated rigorously without invoking outdated metaphysical
commitments.
D.3 Agency and Minimal Self-Influence
Agency is introduced at the ontological level as minimal self-influence over future states. A
system is an agent if its internal meanings and values participate in shaping what it does next.
This definition avoids:
● Equating agency with free will
● Requiring conscious deliberation
● Restricting agency to humans or animals
Agency admits of degrees, but its ontological threshold is crossed when internal structures
constrain future trajectories.
Appendix D.4 — Free Will and Value Degeneracy
D.4.1 Scope and Intent
This appendix clarifies the conditions under which free will may arise within Informational
Ontology. It does not address moral responsibility, legal culpability, or ethical judgment, which
are deferred to later work. The goal here is strictly ontological: to locate free will, if it exists at all,
within the informational chain without introducing new primitives or exceptions.
D.4.2 Valuation and Underdetermination
Let a system capable of awareness encounter a set of possible future states. Through
awareness, the system differentiates these states according to their relevance for its continued
coherence. This differentiation constitutes value.
In most cases, valuation is sufficient to determine action: differences in value generate
preference gradients that constrain behavior. However, valuation does not always uniquely
determine action.
D.4.3 Definition: Value Degeneracy
Value degeneracy occurs when two or more distinct possible future states are assigned equal
value by a system’s valuation structure.

In such cases, valuation alone underconstrains action. The system’s evaluative structure
provides no basis for preference among the degenerate alternatives, despite their being
genuinely distinct.
Value degeneracy is a local and contingent condition. It is not a global feature of valuation, nor
does it occur continuously.
D.4.4 Resolution Strategies at Value-Degenerate Points
When valuation underconstrains action, exactly three resolution strategies are possible:

internal informational structure

constraints not captured by valuation alone
Only the third strategy constitutes agency in the informational sense. Random resolution
introduces no persistent internal constraint, and external resolution bypasses the system’s
internal structure entirely.
D.4.5 Definition: Free Will (Informational Ontology)
Within Informational Ontology, free will is defined as the resolution of action at a
value-degenerate decision point through self-referential informational constraint rather than
valuation.
Free will is therefore not a general property of action, nor a metaphysical faculty. It arises only
where valuation fails to determine action and cannot fail to be resolved by reference to the
system’s own internal coherence across time.
D.4.6 Structural Consequences
From this definition, several consequences follow:
● Free will is rare, not continuous
● Free will is local, not global
● Free will is identity-forming, insofar as self-referential resolutions feed back into future
valuation and meaning

● Free will is neither randomness nor indeterminism, but a structurally constrained form of
resolution
Free will thus appears at the boundary between value and meaning, where action contributes
not merely to outcome but to the internal organization of the system itself.
D.4.7 Boundary Conditions
This account does not imply that all aware systems exercise free will, nor that free will is
required for value, meaning, or purpose. It establishes only the conditions under which free will
may arise, should a system encounter value-degenerate alternatives and possess sufficient
self-referential structure to resolve them internally.
Questions of moral responsibility, ethical evaluation, and legal culpability are explicitly beyond
the scope of this appendix and are addressed separately.
D.5 Artificial Systems and Purpose
Discussions of artificial purpose often conflate externally imposed objectives with internal
purpose.
The ontology draws a sharp distinction: a system that optimizes goals assigned by an external
designer does not thereby possess purpose in the ontological sense. Purpose arises only if the
system’s own meanings and values participate in regulating its future states.
This clarification prevents category errors in discussions of artificial agency and alignment.
Informational registration requires at minimum:
• a bounded system whose internal state conditions informational availability,
• internal asymmetry between registered information and registering structure,
• and sufficient persistence under perturbation for registered states to influence subsequent
transitions.
For differentiation to be more than an abstract assertion, it must be articulable across
persistence. A purely monadic, non-comparative difference cannot be re-identified, cannot recur,
and cannot participate in ordering or selection. Such a difference is structurally inert under the
conditions explicitly assumed by this ontology. Relation therefore does not add structure to
difference from the outside; it is the minimal articulation required for difference to persist, recur,
and constrain organization. Differences that do not admit of relational articulation fall outside the
domain of nontrivial structure addressed here.
Structural inevitability denotes outcomes that persist across a wide range of initial conditions
and perturbations given specified constraints. It is neither logical necessity nor mere
contingency, but constraint-relative stability under ordering and selection.
Not all constraints constitute registration. External causal factors—such as physical laws,
genetic encoding, or chemical gradients—may shape a system’s behavior without being

registered. Informational registration occurs only when informational structure constrains future
state transitions through the system’s own organizational identity, becoming part of the invariant
patterns by which the system maintains itself. In such cases, information does not merely cause
change; it participates in the system’s self-maintaining constraint structure.
Differences that admit no articulation cannot constrain organization, cannot participate in
selection, and cannot ground systems. While such differences may be posited as metaphysical
primitives, they perform no ontological work with respect to persistence, organization, or
structure. An ontology built upon unarticulated differences would therefore be explanatorily
sterile. The Informational Ontology restricts its domain to differences capable of articulation,
because only such differences can participate in nontrivial organization.
Awareness therefore exists only where informational structure participates in the maintenance of
some system boundary. This boundary may be fragile, transient, or minimal. The ontology is
neutral with respect to how rich, stable, or complex such identity must be.
Throughout this paper, 'structural inevitability' denotes constraint-relative stability under ordering
and selection; no stronger modal claim (e.g., logical or metaphysical necessity) is intended.
Appendix E — Worked Example: Bacterium Chemotaxis (Illustrative, Non-Load-Bearing)
This appendix provides a single concrete illustration of how the Informational Ontology regime
ladder (Δ → R → I → A → V → M → P) may be instantiated in a minimal biological system. The
example is illustrative only and does not contribute to the derivation or justification of the
ontology.
System Description:
Consider a bacterium exhibiting chemotaxis in a chemical gradient. The system boundary is
defined structurally as the set of processes that maintain the bacterium’s distinguishability from
its environment across ordering, despite continuous material and energetic exchange.
Δ → R (Difference to Relation):
The chemical gradient introduces differences in concentration across spatial locations. These
differences are not isolated magnitudes but are relationally articulated as higher/lower
concentrations relative to the bacterium’s position, enabling comparability across encounters.
R → I (Relation to Information):
Through repeated interaction with the gradient, certain relational differences become
re-identifiable under perturbation. The persistence of these relational patterns across ordering
constitutes structured difference, satisfying the ontology’s criterion for information.
I → A (Information to Awareness):
Informational structure becomes registered when it participates in constraining the bacterium’s
own future state transitions through its identity-maintaining organization. Gradient-related
differences influence internal regulatory states that modulate movement patterns, not merely as
external causes but as constraints integrated into the system’s self-maintaining dynamics.
A → V (Awareness to Value):
Maintaining informational registration under persistence requires differential stability among
internal states. Certain informational conditions are maintained or reinforced relative to others,
yielding structural value without invoking preference, desire, or normativity.

V → M (Value to Meaning):
Value becomes indexed to informational distinctions when specific differences come to matter
as differences for the system’s ongoing organization. Meaning, in this structural sense, arises as
value organized with respect to informational distinctions rather than as semantic content.
M → P (Meaning to Purpose):
Purpose arises when meaning constrains not only immediate transitions but the selection and
reinforcement of meaning across ordered sequences of change. In chemotaxis, this appears as
asymmetry in how meaning-bearing distinctions are preserved or abandoned across
trajectories, without invoking teleology or future-directed intent.