THE FIRST ACT OF CREATION

Prologue

What follows is an authorial philosophical-theological interpretation of the First Act of Creation. The project’s general framework is set out in Evolutionary-Phase Theism (EPT), its complete map in Seven Acts of Creation, and its moral line in the publication On the Creator, Light, and Inner Work. The project’s technical package has a different task: it tests whether the proposed physical module can withstand the demands of scientific thinking. It does not determine the meaning of the First Act or disclose the manner of the Creator’s action.

This essay has one task: to look closely at the threshold where what arises is not the first object in the world, but the very possibility of objects, events, and history.

Everything that follows is an authorial hypothesis—not an established physical theory, not a proof of the Creator’s existence, and not the only permissible reading of the text of Genesis. The text begins from belief in the Creator and asks how the First Act may be understood; it does not infer the Creator from the limits of scientific knowledge. The Act itself is understood as an action of the Creator, whereas F designates a proposed created prephysical, prequantum, and pregeometric ground of the world’s structural determinacy. F is not the Creator and does not act in His place. We do not know the internal constitution of this ground, do not reconstruct the mechanism by which its structural determinacy acquires a formalizable physical expression, and possess no secret knowledge of how the Creator acts. Specific physical constructions and proposed correspondences therefore remain open to testing, discussion, and revision: ignorance by itself proves nothing, and a failed model must be abandoned rather than moved to the next unresolved problem.

Science Gets Everything

Let us give science the entire field of its legitimate work—with no secret reservations and no forbidden rooms set aside in advance. Everything that observation, experiment, calculation, and theory may one day be able to reach.

Let cosmology trace the history of the universe as far back as the data will allow: toward early expansion, the origin of inhomogeneities, the emergence of spacetime, fields, and stable matter. If a future theory explains the initial conditions, the values of fundamental parameters, and the transitions of the first fractions of a second, that explanation must be accepted in full—with no demand that room be left inside it for an answer chosen in advance.

Astrophysics gets the stars, galaxies, and planetary systems. Geology gets the deep time of Earth. Chemistry gets the full richness of reactions, molecules, and self-sustaining networks. No part of the world’s history should be removed in advance from causal investigation for the sake of a theological answer.

Biology gets life in its entirety. Let it reconstruct a continuous path from prebiotic chemistry to a heritable record, the cell, and evolution. Variation, selection, drift, cooperation, symbiosis, horizontal gene transfer, and endosymbiosis operate with their full causal force. The history of life branches, breaks off, finds new paths, loses some forms, and creates others. It resembles a dense tree crown that has grown over billions of years, not a ladder set up in advance with the human being at its top.

Neuroscience gets the brain in its entirety. Damage to tissue changes memory, perception, and character. Anesthesia interrupts the experienced passage of time. Drugs shift mood and salience. Stimulation evokes sensations and movements. Human consciousness depends causally on the brain, the body, the senses, development, language, and culture. If a future theory can explain that dependence more deeply than we can today, it too has the right to go all the way.

Even the proposed F is given no protected territory of its own. Any technical construction that tries to connect it with formalizable physics and observable consequences must withstand the ordinary demands of inquiry. If it yields no independent explanatory power, it will have to be abandoned. The philosophical importance of the original question cannot rescue a failed model.

The picture seems closed. From the first fractions of a second to the movement of human thought, a single causal history stretches before inquiry. Everything found within it as a state, process, or transition can become an object of observation, calculation, and theory. Science is entitled to follow this chain without a stop sign placed in advance and to approach each of its links as closely as the data allow.

This is the principle of inquiry: for every event within the world, seek a causal path within the world. The cosmos needs no theological insertion between two equations; an unknown stage in the origin of the cell may not be declared a special Act merely because the relevant reaction has not yet been found; the brain needs no sign saying “mystery beyond this point” where an experiment can already be performed.

Science gets everything
that happens on the stage.

And it is the word “stage” that changes the question.

When the Stage Disappears

The imagination has an astonishing talent for furnishing nothingness.

Ask someone to imagine the beginning of the world, and a dark hall appears. Nothing is there yet, but space already is: empty, cool, endless. As though the first event were already somewhere waiting for its hour—even though both “somewhere” and “hour” have been smuggled in beforehand. We extinguish the stars, remove matter, wipe away the dust—and admire a perfectly tidied emptiness.

But the hall remains.

It has extension. We can point in a direction, imagine a distance, draw an imaginary straight line. So we have secretly brought in space and called it the absence of the world.

Then let us take space away. Leave only expectation: nothing has happened yet, but something is about to. At once, invisible clocks begin to tick. They have no face, yet the order “earlier—later” is already at work. One moment gives way to another; the possibility of an event draws nearer.

Take away the clocks.

The words “before,” “after,” “yet,” and “soon” lose their meaning. Time has nowhere to go. No waiting lasts. Even the phrase “for a long time there was nothing” turns out to be a small act of smuggling: duration has been hidden inside it.

Does darkness remain? Darkness seems like the last honest image. Yet darkness is already a state of the visible world: the absence of light for a possible eye, a property of a region that can be contrasted with one that is illuminated. It requires difference, place, and at least the conceivable possibility of light.

Take away the darkness too.

Now the imagination loses its object. It looks for a background and meets the absence of a background; looks for a boundary and discovers that “inside” and “outside” still belong to the future; tries to linger in a moment, though the moment itself will appear only later. We cannot even place an empty point here: a point already carries geometry. We cannot leave pure possibility in the physical sense either: physical possibility requires a state space, a rule of distinction, and a rule of transition.

The stage is gone, along with the wings, the hall, the clocks, and the place for an observer.

At this point in the thought experiment, the familiar physical picture loses its footing: we have removed not another object, but the very stage on which an object could be given. Theological speech names the Source; philosophical thought asks about the gift of being. Here the meaning of the First Act opens: the Creator establishes not the earliest object in the world, but the possibility for a world to be.

No process set Creation in motion;
Creation established
the possibility of processes.

Silence.

Above the Waters

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

This is how the Book of Genesis opens in the Russian Synodal translation. The Hebrew opening permits more than one syntactic reading: the familiar “In the beginning God created…” and a reading close to “When God began to create the heavens and the earth…” For the proposed hypothesis, the choice between them is not decisive. In both cases, what opens before us is not a description of an already completed cosmos, but the beginning of creative action.

In modern Hebrew, the universe is designated by the term ha-yekum, but in biblical usage yekum did not yet have a specialized cosmological meaning: in the account of the Flood it refers to everything existing on the surface of the earth. In the proposed reading, the fullness of the world being created is expressed differently—by the formula “heavens and earth,” a merism that names the whole through two extreme poles. This does not mean that the ancient text already possesses the modern concept of the universe. It solves its linguistic task in its own way.

For a moment, let us imagine ourselves facing the same task. We must describe the beginning of the world’s becoming, yet we possess neither modern physical terminology nor the conceptual apparatus of modern cosmology itself. It is not enough simply to replace scientific words with simpler ones: we must imagine a language in which the very categories by which we now divide the early history of the world have not yet been developed.

What remains? Light and darkness. Depth and surface. Fullness and emptiness. Separation and joining. Motion and rest. Not technical definitions, but distinctions available to human experience.

Revelation addressed to the human being enters human language. It does not arrive with a dictionary of the science of a distant future. Imagery therefore does not by itself mean that the subject is unreal: an image can preserve a relation, a sequence, or a distinction where no specialized language yet exists for their technical description.

But this is also where the boundary of the proposed reading lies. We will not search ancient images for encrypted names from modern physics, turn functional resemblance into literal physical identity, or make the entire hypothesis depend on a single philological solution. What interests us is not a secret dictionary of ancient science, but the work an image performs within the sequence of the text.

For the same reason, within the hypothesis the “earth” of the next line should not be prematurely identified with an already formed planet Earth. It is read as the material pole of the world being created, not yet gathered into the familiar stable forms.

The words “formless and empty,” darkness, and the deep are read with the same caution. Within the hypothesis, this is no longer absolute nothingness: being has been given, but distinguishable domains and stable forms have not yet unfolded.

The “waters” do not become an ancient technical name for plasma. They appeal to familiar human experience of depth, fluidity, and the absence of fixed boundaries. A comparison with the hot primordial medium of the early universe is therefore possible only at the level of the image’s function: the world already exists, but has not yet acquired the stable structure familiar to us.

Above the waters—the Spirit of God. The Creator’s presence is not inferred from the physical description that follows and does not belong to the composition of the primordial medium. The text places it differently: being has already been given, presence is there, while differences and stable forms have yet to unfold.

Being has already been given,
the Creator is present,
and the separations still lie ahead.

The biblical text does not stand in for the physics of the future. In the proposed reading, it preserves a more fundamental sequence: created reality already is, but its distinguishable order is only beginning to unfold.

Then comes the first direct command:

“Let there be light. And there was light.”

The World Unfolds

The word is spoken—and in place of a finished landscape there arises the condition of every landscape.

In the language of the hypothesis, the Creator grants being to the created ground designated F—in the Russian terminology, an “informational field.” The word “field” is provisional here. An ordinary physical field already presupposes spacetime, locality, states, and dynamics. F is conceived at a deeper level—as a prephysical, prequantum, and pregeometric ground of the world’s structural determinacy. The hypothesis does not know how this determinacy acquires physical expression; what follows traces the logic of unfolding, not a reconstructed mechanism of the Act.

The first meaning of this ground is distinguishability.

Before differences exist, no state can be singled out from another. There is no “this” and “other,” no choice and prohibition, no event and preservation. Distinguishability opens within the created ground: once physically expressed, it allows states to differ and difference itself to become physically significant. This is the primordial condition under which state, law, and transition can one day become determinate.

Differences enter into relations.

One state is compatible with another; a third excludes a fourth; some combinations permit continuation, others lead to transformation. Relation gives difference a channel. Bare multiplicity might scatter into incoherent noise, while a network of relations allows states to belong to a single order.

Now comparison becomes possible. States acquire shared features and limits of change; similarity and difference gain determinacy; difference of magnitude separates from difference of kind. The world acquires the possibility of measure before there is any ruler, because the ruler itself will one day arise within a physically expressed order.

Transitions acquire determinacy. Some become admissible, others are excluded; a realized state changes what can follow next. Here the very possibility of a coherent history appears.

Now let us cross in thought to the far side of the open boundary—to the level where relations have already acquired geometric expression. This is not a description of the mechanism of transition, but the next step in the conceptual reconstruction.

What was relational proximity without meters or directions now takes form as distance. Distinguishable sequences become duration. A network of compatibilities unfolds into direction, neighborhood, locality. States can now stand in relation to one another; transitions can occupy intervals; causal connection can build a physical “earlier” and “later.”

Space and time enter the stage together with the possibility of motion.

Time acquires measure. A transition can now occupy an interval. One event precedes another not only in a human telling. What has happened leaves consequences, and the next moment receives a world already changed.

Motion acquires a cost: to get from one state to another, a system needs a physically admissible transition. Propagation becomes finite; conditions for encounter emerge; influence acquires an order. Causation ceases to be a word used by an observer and becomes the architecture of what happens.

The stage assembles itself. Its floorboards are still hot, there is no scenery, and the curtain has only just appeared as the boundary between the possible and the realized. On this stage one can distinguish region and path, propagation and delay, encounter and separation. Time begins to pass within the created gift.

We can imagine the primordial network of relations gradually learning to become geometry. At first there is only the physical possibility of relating states. Then some connections acquire a stable scale, sequences acquire directionality, and local changes enter a shared causal order. The coordinate grid will appear much later in a human notebook; nature itself has already received what the grid expresses: extension, metric, and clocks capable of running together.

With the direction of time comes the difference between trace and expectation. A completed transition changes the set of further possibilities; a broken symmetry selects a realized regime; dissipated energy closes some paths and opens others. History acquires an arrow before any living being calls the past past.

Here the essay touches briefly on a specific technical physical module—one possible and revisable attempt to connect the original intuition of F with formalizable physics. This module begins on the far side of the prephysical boundary and is not part of the definition of F.

At the first level that permits formal description, the model introduces a sector distinction—two distinguishable classes provisionally called positive and negative. These are not two ready-made parts of F, not divided territories, and not symbols of good and evil. The sector distinction itself belongs to the technical construction; the question of its local physical realization belongs to the next level of the model.

At the local physical level, the model considers secondary fields. The fields known to physics belong to this derived level but do not exhaust it. They have states, interactions, and dynamics of their own; their massless quanta, including the photon, belong to the fields themselves. For observable massive states, the technical module proposes a different, composite status; its detailed justification belongs to the technical package.

Being derivative does not make the secondary fields ghostly. The level that has emerged has causal efficacy of its own: its states interact and affect the history that follows. The deeper ground is explanatorily prior to the level, but it does not replace the level’s vocabulary with a single letter.

Light enters the physical order.

The electromagnetic field carries excitations, photons propagate, radiation enters into interactions. Other fields and their quanta appear; symmetries and their breaking come into play. Motion leaves a trace in the next state; law binds event to consequence; the universe acquires a history.

Physical history thus unfolds one side of the proposed order of F: primordial differences acquire physically expressed relations, admissible transitions acquire causal efficacy of their own, and with the emergence of geometry, fields, and motion, the world acquires a history. Stable material states belong to the further unfolding of that history and to the next special threshold of the hypothesis. From here, the same created order will be read from an informational-semantic perspective—through grammar, music, light, mathematics, life, and consciousness. These are not two independently acting parts of F, but two human ways of seeing one ground.

Within this single gift, physical realizability is joined to informational determinacy: the world receives not only the capacity to exist, but a definite order of differences, measures, relations, and admissible transformations. This order opens many paths; history realizes only some of them.

The future is born as the world moves,
not retrieved from a tape
recorded in advance.

Law here means not an external prescription but a stable mode of existence of created reality: invariants survive transformations, quantities are conserved, some transitions are permitted and others closed. The world acquires reliability, and with it the possibility of novelty. A string answers a touch according to its properties; that is precisely why a melody can distinguish one gesture from another.

In the later language of physics, this deep determinacy may appear as stable relations, symmetries, invariants, parameters, and prohibitions. The hypothesis does not decide in advance which of the physical grounds known today are genuinely fundamental and which may one day prove derivable from a deeper level. It proposes only that physical order does not arise from complete indeterminacy.

Information here means the objective articulation of a physical state. Information requires a real difference: a realized state excludes alternatives and changes the possibilities that follow. There are no letters here, no secret archive, no ready-made chronicle of the future. There is a world capable of holding its own differences and transforming them according to stable laws of relation and transition.

This understanding guards against two extremes at once. Information does not dissolve into human description: states differed before language appeared. Nor does information become a separate substance added to energy and fields. What is at issue is the structure of real states and transformations; the objective depth of form will require an argument of its own.

The gift of possibility begins to bear fruit. Field excitations interact, states transform, and events that have occurred change the conditions of those that follow. History begins to leave a physical trace. Expansion changes conditions; interactions change composition; local inhomogeneities grow. There are no stars yet, but a physical grammar already exists in which a star will be able to ignite.

Nor do the later Acts lie inside F as events already prepared. If the hypothesis connects them with an expansion of what is attainable, this means the appearance of a new possibility for the history that follows, not the extraction of another page from a book written in advance. The present model does not reconstruct how such an expansion occurs.

In human speech, this unfolding takes several pages. But seconds or any other unit of metric time cannot be applied to the prephysical establishment of F itself. The sequence spread out here in human language expresses an order of dependencies, not frame-by-frame footage: before spacetime emerges, the word “duration” itself has nothing to refer to.

Now another question can be asked: why does this movement not collapse into incoherent noise? What holds differences together, forbids the impossible, and allows an incalculable multitude of new forms to arise from a limited set of grounds?

For that, we need another image.

The Grammar of the Possible

A scatter of letters lies on the table. The Russian alphabet has thirty-three of them—the entire set can be taken in at a glance. Yet from those few signs arise prayer and repentance, a scientific paper and an instruction manual, a joke and a tragedy, a confession and a sentence. One alphabet receives innumerable human voices.

The letters are the same. The sentences are new.

The inexhaustibility of speech arises not from repeating letters, but from differences, relations, order, and rules of transformation. A small vocabulary becomes vast once it acquires grammar.

Grammar joins the finite to the practically inexhaustible. It distinguishes admissible connections and makes it possible to hold tense, person, action, dependence, and completion together. Through it, a listener knows who did what, when, and to whom. But grammar does not work only by permission.

It forbids.

Not every combination of signs becomes a coherent sentence. Not every continuation preserves the construction already begun. Some forms permit many next moves; others close almost all of them. A rule does not choose truth or falsehood, tenderness or cruelty, precision or empty talk for the speaker. It marks out the space within which a sentence can happen at all.

Grammar makes speech possible,
but it does not write every
sentence for the speaker.

In the language of the hypothesis, this image discloses the informational-semantic side of F. The Creator establishes not a finished history, but its primordial grammar: real differences, relations, and constraints through which one thing can combine with another, a third can be excluded, and what has occurred can change the conditions of continuation.

In this sense, F is easier to imagine through the question “what is impossible here?” than through an endless list of everything possible.

A prohibition carries information too.

If two states are incompatible, if a certain transformation is impossible, if a relation must survive change, or if one completed move has excluded another, then the world already has structure. The freedom of the history that follows exists not instead of constraints, but because not everything is equally possible under every condition.

Here lies a bolder intuition of the hypothesis. What in the later language of physics appears as a fundamental relation, an invariant, an initial parameter, or a structural prohibition may express a deeper determinacy of F. This does not mean that today’s table of physical constants is wholly “written” into F. Some of what now appears fundamental may be derived by a future theory from deeper relations.

But the very possibility of such a derivation does not remove the question of the ground.

If a physical explanation reduces several initial parameters to one deeper principle, it does not abolish the grammar—it shows that what we took for separate rules were consequences of a more general rule.

There is no chronicle written in advance here, no star systems, organisms, genomes, works of art, or human thoughts. The deep order opens the space of history but does not replace history with a finished text.

The later Acts do not extract hidden content from it either. In the language of the hypothesis, they may open new ranges of what is attainable. The biological grammar of heredity, variation, selection, and drift that arises later therefore does not lie ready-made in F as a biological theory. But neither can it violate the deeper physical and structural determinacy of the world within which life becomes able to exist. Every realized move not only selects a future—it changes the very pattern of what can still follow.

Grammar offers a deeper gift as well—the possibility of a whole. Letters do not disappear in a word, notes in a chord, cells in an organism. Yet when they enter a whole, they acquire relations and a role they did not possess alone. The world can join differences without erasing them.

The openness of order permits not only the continuation of an emergent form but also its loss. One sequence of states sustains an established whole and expands its possibilities; another destroys the relations on which it depends. This does not mean that F “makes mistakes” or that the Creator’s Design fails. Success, breakdown, and error arise only at levels where function, aim, expectation, or wholeness already exist: relative to them, one outcome preserves what has been attained while another loses it. The deep order does not prescribe a single outcome at the level of created causes, but it makes differences among outcomes real and gives them consequences.

Rules allow style. The same syntax sounds different from one author to another. One likes a long breath; another sets down three short words and leaves space after them. Shared form does not erase novelty: it gives novelty room to happen and to retain the signature of event and person.

The same language can receive mutually contradictory statements. A grammatically flawless sentence may be true or false, tender or cruel, wise or empty. The possibility of coherence therefore does not yet contain ready-made meaning. The informational content of F is objective: differences, relations, and constraints belong to the world itself and do not arise only when a human being appears to describe them in words. But human meaning is not stored in F in advance. It appears later—in the meeting of form, world, intention, and consciousness.

The metaphor has a limit as well. Human grammar has a history: generations of speakers have changed it, and a child enters it through communication. The order of F is conceived more deeply—as a condition under which stable states, relations, and rules can arise at all. Grammar therefore serves here as an image, not a blueprint: it helps us see the structure of the idea but does not substitute for its physical description.

In physics, information long ago ceased to be merely a metaphor for a message. Rolf Landauer placed an exceptionally concise formula in the title of a paper: “Information is Physical,”[1] and connected it with a physical carrier and the thermodynamic cost of transformations. Quantum information theory investigates admissible operations on states. Constructor theory formulates some laws through the distinction between possible and impossible transformations. These approaches do not form a single school and do not confirm the existence of F. But they show something important for our image: difference, constraint, and impossibility can enter a fundamental description of the world rather than being merely words used by an observer.

And grammar has one more property.

One can do more than obey it.

One can recognize it.

A speaker can notice a relation, find a violation, understand why one continuation belongs with what came before while another breaks the connection. Later another question will arise: can reason, in a similar way, do more than exist causally within the created order—can it recognize some of that order’s objective relations as relations it did not itself establish?

That is only a question.

For now, before us is only grammar—still without a voice.

Music in the Air

Grammar showed order where a human being formulates thought. Music will let us encounter that same form as something that can be experienced. After grammar, one wants to hear and feel a voice.

The orchestra is still silent. The musicians enter one by one, open their cases, set pages on their stands. Someone draws a bow across a string; the oboe sounds an A; for a moment the hall fills with scattered sounds. Pitch, timbre, duration, and energy are already there, but the work itself is not yet present.

The conductor raises a hand.

One gesture turns expectation into a beginning. Sounds enter one another, the next measure holds the one before it, silence becomes part of the movement. A melody exists not in a single note but in relations that pass through time and remain recognizable when the instrument, key, or tempo changes.

Grammar has found a voice.

Every note that sounds changes not only the melody’s present but its future. After it, some continuations sound like the keeping of a promise, others like an unexpected discovery, still others like the loss of a whole already found. Possibility in music does not lie before the composer like a motionless fan: it narrows and opens again as the work acquires a history.

The seven familiar note names—do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, si—can be spoken in a single breath. The sounds they name return in different octaves, rise or fall by a semitone, form intervals, acquire rhythm, duration, and timbre. The same series receives a lullaby and a requiem, a fugue and an improvisation. The notes remain recognizable, while the music can be new each time.

Take the note D. Its name belongs to language; its position on the staff to a system of notation; the black oval to typography. The note displays an admirable indifference to the typeface in which its name is printed. It sounded in oral cultures where a musician needed no written notation, and it continues to sound after the paper has yellowed.

Notation helps transmit a design, but the sign serves the note; it does not create the note out of ink.

The same pitch enters different modes, tensions, and resolutions; timbre changes between violin, voice, and flute; neighboring sounds turn it now into a point of rest, now into expectation. Physical oscillation carries the sound, hearing distinguishes it, memory holds what has just sounded, and the musical whole binds the moments together. Here the informational intuition of F appears again: not a ready-made work, but the objectivity of relations and constraints within which a work can arise at all. The composer does not retrieve a melody from a deep archive, but neither does the composer create from nothing the very possibility that sounds can form stable, distinguishable, and unequal relations.

An octave arises from a two-to-one frequency ratio. Rhythm divides duration. Intervals can be distinguished and measured. The physical ground does not compose music, yet not every sequence of sounds becomes music merely because someone decides to play it. Nor does the listener experience the fraction two to one. The listener hears return, tension, resolution, expectation, and surprise. A mathematically determinate relation becomes a sensory event without ceasing to be exact.

Edward Elgar once expressed the composer’s experience with an almost provocative simplicity:
“My idea is that there is music in the air, music all around us, the world is full of it and you simply take as much as you require.”[2] These words are beautiful precisely as testimony to creative experience. They convey the feeling of discovery: a theme comes toward you as though it already asks to be heard.

A literal physics of that sentence would quickly destroy it. Air carries acoustic waves, but it does not store the Ninth Symphony, a jazz improvisation, or a mother’s lullaby. Nor are finished scores stored in the deep ground of the world. Otherwise the composer would become a download device, and creativity the copying of a file.

The experience of discovery is subtler. The composer encounters relations that make demands of their own. An interval can be played in tune or out of tune. A theme allows continuations of different force. The return of a motif sometimes gathers the whole, sometimes sounds routine. The author discovers these connections and at the same time creates a work that has never before existed in the history of the world.

What is found and what is created
meet in a single movement.

Melody submits to form, but form does not prescribe a single continuation or accept every continuation as equal. Sonata logic gave the world works that cannot be derived from one another. A shared tonal system received Bach, Mozart, and Chopin while preserving the difference of their voices. Even a strict fugue lives by freedom in the choice of theme, answer, entries, tension, and light between the voices.

The performer adds another layer. The score specifies pitches, durations, tempo, and dynamics, yet two honest performances sound different. The breathing of a phrase, a microscopic delay, the density of an attack, and the silence between sounds create the event of this particular evening. Fidelity to form produces difference here, not sameness.

Freedom is not arbitrariness. A random sequence of sounds may be unique, but uniqueness by itself does not yet make music. Creativity answers to relations: to rhythm, measure, expectation, expressive truth, and the wholeness of the work. Form does not abolish freedom—it makes choice distinguishable and gives it consequences. In music, form resembles a riverbed in which water can quicken, alter its pattern, bend around stones, and reflect the sky. Remove the riverbed and you get a flood without direction. Turn it into a pipe and living variation disappears. Music holds to an exact measure between coherence and openness.

Years of training prepare the ear, memory, and hand to meet form. But preparation and the recognition of form are not the same. In creative experience there can be a moment when the author already hears that one move is right while another breaks the whole, even though the path from that recognition to a sequential explanation has not yet been traveled. Years of listening, unconscious work, and the help of others may lie behind the suddenness; none of that negates the experience of having found a relation.

Here the hypothesis takes a cautious step further. If F truly represents an objective informational depth of the created order, one may suppose that embodied consciousness can be open to some relations within that order. Not receive a ready-made melody from F. Not read a secret signal. Not bypass the brain, memory, learning, or creative work.

Rather—to recognize a relation that consciousness did not establish by its own will.

Such openness is not conceived as a separate physical channel and is not proposed as an established mechanism. Memory, learning, unconscious work, and the reorganization of accumulated experience may stand behind the suddenness of recognition. But that does not remove the question itself: can creative consciousness encounter objective form rather than only produce a description of it?

The composer creates a work that has never existed before and yet discovers within that work relations to which the composer must answer. Creativity turns out not to be a choice between “receiving something finished” and “producing everything from oneself.” It may be a meeting of freedom and order.

It is precisely this possibility that the hypothesis leaves open.

This is especially clear in music transmitted through oral tradition. A song passes through hundreds of voices, changes its melisma, rhythm, and words, yet remains recognizable. No singer possesses the single ideal version. Each receives the form, responds to it, and passes to the next performer a musical whole already changed.

The final chord fades. The air returns to ordinary oscillations, the orchestra lowers its hands. For several seconds the hall is silent—the silence is different now from what it was before the performance began. Then applause breaks the silence.

The physical trace of the concert gradually disperses, but human history changes. Someone carries the theme home; a musician hears a mistake and will play differently tomorrow; a young listener decides to begin studying music. Form enters memory and becomes a condition of the next creative step. The work continues to act even though the air no longer holds a single note that sounded.

Light Becomes Visible

After music, light enters almost without a sound.

But physical light does not begin with visibility. It exists long before the appearance of an eye or any being capable of calling the world light or dark. In the classical approximation, physics describes light as an electromagnetic wave; in the quantum description, as a state of the electromagnetic field whose quanta are called photons. These are not two different lights but two languages for describing one physical reality.

A photon carries energy and momentum. Radiation propagates at a finite speed, interacts with matter, heats it, and takes part in physical and chemical transformations. The properties of radiation—direction of propagation, frequency, polarization, and arrival time—can carry information about the source and about interactions that altered the light along the way. Light does more than exist: it carries physically expressed differences. It carries not the object itself, but a physical trace of the source and the path traveled. The star remains distant, the leaf stays on the branch, the face remains before us, yet altered radiation connects each of them with the observer. Distance does not disappear; light turns it from a mere separation into a relation.

In the hot early universe, photons continually interact with free electrons and other charged particles, so the primordial medium remains opaque to their free propagation. Much later, after recombination, radiation begins to travel freely over immense distances. We observe its cooled trace today as the cosmic microwave background. Light existed before starlight and already carried physical information about the young cosmos.

Eyes will appear incomparably later.

A human being does not see a photon as a tiny glowing object. Vision begins when photons reach the retina and are absorbed by its light-sensitive cells. No instrument need stand between the light of a star and the human eye: the eye itself receives physical light. We do not see the photon—we see the world because of photons.

The universe touches the retina.

This immediacy is deceptive. We see a green tree, golden sand, a red flame, but color does not lie on the surface like paint. At dawn the atmosphere scatters light, the Sun’s position changes the length of its path, the retina turns the impact into neural signals, and the brain gathers a stable image. Every link in the physical mechanism retains causal force; the dawn as experienced arises in the meeting of radiation, a living system, and consciousness. Light becomes given to someone.

And yet its role is not exhausted by being perceived. Light makes something else visible.

It separates figure from ground, reveals boundary, color, depth, and motion. Through changes in illumination, the eye distinguishes near from far, still from moving, surface from the empty space between objects.

Light lets us see not only a thing,
but the difference between
one thing and another.

Here the physical and informational sides meet with particular clarity. Light reflected from a leaf differs from light arriving from the sky; radiation from a hot body differs from radiation from a cold one; a change in luminous flux conveys motion. Vision draws the boundaries of the observable world from these physical differences.

Physical light is thus connected with the First Act through the common line of distinguishability and manifestation. The First Act does not yet create an eye and does not contain a ready-made visual image. It establishes the more primordial possibility of real difference; within the physical order that emerges, differences acquire the capacity to propagate, interact, and preserve a connection with their source. Across the immense history of the cosmos, life, and the brain, this distinguishability becomes visibility.

First the world becomes physically distinguishable.

Then it becomes visible.

Only then does another language of light open—the theological one.

Light becomes an image of the Creator’s presence not because electromagnetic radiation possesses a divine nature. Its power lies elsewhere: while remaining physical, light makes manifest what without it would remain hidden. Biblical images of flame, radiance, and the pillar of fire therefore belong to the language of presence and Revelation, not to physical description.

Physics investigates field and photon, biology the eye, neuroscience the visual image; theological speech speaks of the Source through whom being itself becomes possible and manifest. These levels must not be conflated, but the completeness of a natural explanation does not destroy the image: the image rests not on a gap in knowledge but on light’s real capacity to reveal what is other than itself.

In the biblical text, light is separated from darkness. In the language of the hypothesis, what is heard here above all is the establishment of distinguishability. The sector distinction described above belongs to the physical level and is not a decoding key for the theological symbolism of light and darkness.

“Let there be light” therefore does not become an ancient technical name for the photon. Physical light enters the logical composition of the First Act but does not exhaust it. The biblical formula holds a broader transition: from the absence of the stage itself to a distinguishable reality capable of continuing, within which physical light becomes possible and later becomes visible to a living being.

Sound existed before the listener; radiation before the eye. Music showed how relations unfold through time and become an audible whole. Light shows how physical difference travels through space, touches a living observer, and becomes visible.

But before asking who sees, we need to linger over form itself: why does it preserve its determinacy as light, distance, and viewpoint change—and why is reason able to recognize it?

A Rigor No One Has Seen

Light made form visible. Now another question arises: what exactly do we recognize in an image that keeps changing?

Draw a circle with a pencil. The line will be rough, the graphite uneven, the thickness variable. A laser will leave a more precise trace, a machine will make a more accurate part, a computer will produce a smooth image assembled from pixels. Every physical instance will retain both its material medium and a margin of error.

Yet the definition of a circle remains exact: the set of points in a plane equidistant from a single center.

No one has seen such a circle. Its line has no thickness, and all of its points remain equidistant from the center without any error at all. It cannot be printed, machined, or held in the imagination with absolute precision. And yet a human being understands this exact form and can distinguish a more accurate embodiment from a less accurate one.

The mental image trembles too; it changes size and color. Reason grasps not a perfect inner picture but a relation—equal distance from the center.

Precision belongs to structure,
not to the quality of the image on paper, on a screen, or in consciousness.

Vision reveals the next turn. In perspective, a square table is projected onto the retina as a figure with unequal sides and angles. Yet a person sees a square table. The brain takes account of angle, depth, and the position of the surface, allowing one form to be recognized through continuously changing projections. Sometimes the same mechanism produces an illusion: equal lines appear unequal, and a motionless figure appears to move. The image changes; the relation keeps the object recognizable.

Grammar has already shown how a finite set of signs opens a practically inexhaustible space of expression. Mathematics repeats that movement with still greater rigor.

Ten digits—from zero to nine—fit on a single short line. With them one can write any natural number, however large. Add signs of operations, variables, and formal rules, and the notation opens a path to calculations, equations, and proofs.

There are ten digits. The sequence of numbers has no end.

But mathematics is not hidden inside the digits. Digits form the alphabet of decimal notation; mathematical content unfolds in relations. Just as a musical symbol does not create the sounding note, a digit does not create a number—it allows a number to enter human notation.

Take the number seven. It can be represented by the digit 7, the Roman VII, a word, seven dots, strokes of a bell, or a sequence of sounds. The carriers change; the quantitative relation remains. The digit belongs to a writing system; the number enters a network of relations with other numbers and has properties that do not depend on the shape of the sign.

Here another property of form appears: it can remain itself while changing its appearance. Seven survives a change of sign; a circle survives translation, rotation, and change of size. Identity does not require immobility. Reason recognizes the same thing through transformation when the defining relation is preserved.

A child learns addition on a particular day. The history of learning explains how the knowledge entered the child’s consciousness, but in ordinary arithmetic two plus two does not become four because the school bell rang. Human beings introduce notation, accept starting propositions, and choose a line of reasoning. After that, the conclusion is governed by the relation among the premises. Error is possible; voting on truth is useless.

Proof makes this especially clear. A few signs on a board lead from an accepted condition to a necessary consequence. The chalk will be erased, the language can be changed, and another person can repeat the same line of reasoning a century later. Necessity belongs to a relation that different minds are able to discover and verify.

Mathematics nevertheless remains a human practice. People choose axioms, create notation, find short and long proofs, argue about rigor, make mistakes, and begin again. The objectivity of a conclusion does not cancel creative labor. It gives that labor an object capable of resisting error.

From here arises the Platonic intuition: sensible things embody forms approximately, while reason encounters a precision that surpasses every individual instance. The hypothesis takes this objectivity seriously, but it does not place mathematical forms in an autonomous eternal realm alongside the Creator, nor does it turn F into a storehouse of ideal figures, colorless numbers, and proofs written in advance. F designates a more primordial structural determinacy: the possibility of stable relations, real constraints, and a noncontradictory order capable later of receiving exact mathematical expression. Mathematics therefore does not lie in F as a ready-made book, yet within the hypothesis its applicability to the world is not wholly external to the structure of Creation itself.

The same applies to geometry. F does not contain Euclidean or any other geometry as a ready-made system of axioms: it is conceived as pregeometric. But if a particular geometric structure proves to be the physical expression of more primordial relations and constraints, then within the hypothesis its ground belongs to that same deep order. Axioms do not lie in F as lines in a textbook; what is posited at a deeper level is the order within which some geometric relations are compatible with the given structure of the world, others are excluded, and some follow from conditions already accepted. Here again the image of grammar works: it does not store a finished book, but neither does it allow the book to be just anything.

The origins of mathematics were in large part practical. Counting answered the need to distinguish quantity; measurement, the comparison of magnitudes; geometry, the needs of surveying, building, and observing the sky. Much of mathematical language grew out of the practical encounter between the human being and the world.

But its development is not exhausted by this. Many structures were developed for internal mathematical questions, with no known physical application in view. Later, some became the language of spacetime, quantum states, fields, and symmetries. A form created for one set of problems unexpectedly revealed an exact correspondence with processes in an independently existing physical world.

Eugene Wigner put his thesis with striking directness: “The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it.”[3] What matters here is the question habit so easily hides: why is a human formal apparatus able to describe with such precision a world that exists independently of human notation?

One can point to the selection of successful models, the evolutionary origin of cognitive capacities, idealization, experimental testing, and the possibility of changing the mathematical language of a theory. All of this explains a substantial part of the path, guards against romanticizing the mystery, and prevents mathematical effectiveness from being presented as proof of a metaphysical hypothesis.

Yet correspondence does not become an illusion simply because we have learned to use it. The world has stable relations; reason creates exact formal structures; experiment distinguishes descriptions that work from a multitude of beautiful alternatives. In the language of the hypothesis, two lines meet here: the world bears objective order, and embodied reason can recognize some of its relations and express them formally. F designates the deep structural determinacy of the world; why human consciousness can encounter this determinacy as intelligible form is a separate question to which we will return. What matters here is recognition itself: reason creates the language of description, but the relation it discovers does not belong to that language.

The objectivity of form means not an external limit placed on the Creator, but an internal determinacy of what is created. If a relation has been established, its consequences are not arbitrary; if a law operates, the world preserves coherence through change. The Creator does not receive rules from outside: together with being, He gives reality precision, consistency, and the possibility of being understood.

Galileo spoke of the book of nature and mathematical language. Today formulas reach domains his age could scarcely have imagined. Yet the central scene remains the same: a sign on a human page suddenly predicts an event in a laboratory or at a distant star.

Mathematics looks at physics.

Physics answers through experiment.

When Precision Enters Matter

Physics does not begin its answer with a stone, an atom, or a star.

First—relations.

Symmetry means that a physical description preserves its form under a particular transformation. An invariant connects different states and observations. Symmetry breaking opens a difference between possibilities that had been equivalent. An equation expresses the course of change; dimension joins an abstract quantity to length, time, energy, and momentum. Physical law preserves not the immobility of the world but its fidelity to itself through change. It shows what may change, what must be preserved, and where the former equivalence of possibilities gives way to one realized path. Symmetry holds identity; its breaking makes history concrete.

But the sign on the page sets nothing in motion. An equation does not command matter; it describes a stable relation within it. Causal action belongs not to the notation but to the physically realized order: a particular state permits some transitions, excludes others, and becomes a condition of the next state.

Then—fields.

Stable relations acquire physical realization: excitations propagate, interact, and carry energy and momentum. In the language of the hypothesis, having emerged from the deeper ground F, secondary fields act through physical causation and possess dynamics of their own. No new external intervention is required for each motion of a field.

Then—stable states and matter.

Bound states preserve wholeness through change. Nuclei and electrons form atoms; atoms enter reactions; interactions create stable and short-lived combinations. Temperature changes the available regimes, density the frequency of encounters, the expansion of the universe the conditions of later transformations.

Every stable state acquires definite consequences and enters the causal history that follows.

Gravity gathers clouds.

Clouds contract. Pressure and temperature rise. Fusion ignites in stellar cores, setting light elements on the path toward heavier ones. A star holds its balance, consumes fuel, changes regime, sheds its outer layers, or explodes. The elements made within it return to space and become part of future generations of stars.

A new generation receives not a finished script but altered initial conditions. In disks around young stars, grains collide, bodies grow, planets gather. Stone preserves the isotopic trace of earlier processes; an atmosphere enters chemical exchange; an ocean dissolves substances; a surface changes under impacts, water, and heat. The past is present in the present not as a story but as a physical state.

Chemistry unfolds a new alphabet from the elements already formed. Carbon makes chains and rings; water becomes a medium for reactions; gradients direct flows of energy. A molecule’s composition matters, but composition alone is not enough: the spatial arrangement of atoms changes its stability, reactivity, and ability to bind with other molecules.

An exact relation acquires a physical consequence.

Now slow the montage and look at a crystal of salt. Its lattice repeats a simple relation across an immense number of nodes; the visible face grows out of microscopic order. In a snowflake, the same principle joins strict symmetry to the unrepeatable history of temperature and humidity. Law opens a space of possible forms; particular conditions write the pattern.

A drop of water shows the next level. The electrical properties and interactions of molecules combine into surface tension, flow, and the capacity to dissolve substances. No single molecule contains a “drop” inside itself. And yet the properties of the drop are real: they are fully rooted in molecular interactions and at the same time enter causal relations at a larger scale.

A hierarchy of physical levels thus arises. A new level does not abolish the one before it or violate its laws. It gathers the relations of parts into a whole whose properties become conditions of further processes.

Physical history unfolds within an order of differences, relations, and constraints associated in the hypothesis with F: a particular state opens some continuations and closes others. But this order contains no route chosen in advance and does not guarantee the ready attainability of every later form. The path is composed of initial conditions, interactions, contingencies, and consequences already realized; where a later Act opens a new range of what is attainable, subsequent history continues within an order that has been expanded.

Law outlines the space of the possible;
history realizes one path within it.

A crystal, the pattern of a snowflake, and a particular planet therefore do not lie in F in ready-made form. Their emergence can be understood as the emergent unfolding of possibilities at the physical level. The hypothesis treats the transition to heritable life differently: not as a simple unpacking of primordial F, but as an expansion of what is attainable in one of the later Acts.

A mathematical relation receives physical embodiment in a measurable state. Physical interactions open the chemical level through stable combinations. If a new level is fully attainable under the grammar already in place, its appearance belongs to emergence. Where the hypothesis proposes a special Act, it claims the imparting of a new possibility; it does not replace an unknown natural mechanism with a theological name.

An equation describes relations within the created world and deserves trust where calculation withstands experiment. Law binds conditions to consequences, keeping causal account even when an earlier form disappears: a particle may cease to exist as a separate excitation, while energy and momentum enter new states.

A formula tested on Earth speaks of a distant star; a spectral line answers the calculation, and a theory is corrected when the world objects. Law does not list future events—it allows particular states to make history. The question of the Source of being remains a question of another order.

The world is already full of motion. Light travels. Stars burn. Planets cool. Molecules meet. Now history must learn to pass form on to itself.

A History That Knows How to Continue

Until now, history has left traces.

A star returned matter enriched with new elements to space; from it arose later generations of stars and planets. Stone preserved an isotopic memory of earlier processes. A crystal extended an order once formed into the next nodes of its lattice. But a physical trace is not yet heredity. A stone can retain the past, but it produces no descendant to which it can transmit the pattern by which it was formed.

Imagine a molecular network at the boundary between water and mineral. Flows of energy pass through it, some reactions accelerate others, stable cycles arise, products disperse, combinations break apart and assemble again. Most of what happens vanishes without continuation. But some processes can persist longer, use available energy, and influence the conditions of their own recurrence. Boundaries, cycles, and molecular templates appear—not yet finished life, but already the physicochemical possibility of its realization.

The exact path from prebiotic chemistry to the first living system remains an open research problem. Science is entitled to search for every intermediate stage: energy sources, self-sustaining cycles, copying mechanisms, the emergence of membranes, and the connection between a heritable record and the work performed by the system.

Within the seven-Act hypothesis, it is at this boundary that the Fourth Act of Creation is proposed. The First Act establishes the primordial grammar of physical history, but it does not contain every later possibility in hidden form. At the threshold of heritable life, the hypothesis associates the Fourth Act with an expansion of what is attainable: physicochemical history acquires the possibility of a stable form of organization capable of passing on the pattern by which it is built.

Science is entitled to reconstruct the entire physicochemical path from a prebiotic environment to heritable life. A special Act is not inserted where a chemical stage is missing: the correspondence concerns the attainability of the new mode of organization itself. If a sufficient natural reconstruction shows that heritable life is fully attainable within the possibilities of the preceding level, the correspondence with the Fourth Act must be revised. The unknown mechanism therefore remains a problem for research, not an argument for the Act.

Life does not begin as a motionless jewel set among stones. It reveals itself as organization able to sustain its own continuation: to take in matter and energy, connect an internal record with the work of the system, and reproduce its form with variation. The living thing preserves itself not by retaining the same matter. Matter passes through the organism, molecules are replaced, the boundary is continually maintained, and the whole remains itself through the preservation of organization. Here identity acquires a new, active meaning: to continue, life must continually change.

Here physical memory becomes heritable.

From this moment on, the past gains
a new presence in the future.

Once heredity appears, history gains the capacity to accumulate changes and branch. Variations arise in reproduction and recombination; selection and drift alter the composition of populations; migration carries variants, isolation separates lineages.

But novelty is not born only from competition. Cooperation, symbiosis, and horizontal transfer join possibilities that were previously separate; endosymbiosis can turn an independent participant into part of a new whole. The mitochondrion preserves the trace of just such an encounter: later history proceeded from an organism that carried a new unity.

Evolution therefore does not resemble a ladder on which all life inevitably climbs toward the human being. It branches, returns to similar solutions, loses once-useful traits, and leaves vast branches without continuation. Parasites may lose organs, cave animals their sight, while bacteria may reach astonishing efficiency without moving toward human complexity. Mass extinctions cut off lineages that under other conditions might have continued. What appears is not a ladder but a forest: growing, intertwining, withering, sending out new shoots.

In the language of the hypothesis, F does not contain the biological history that follows; it establishes the general order within which, after heredity appears, a biological grammar of its own becomes possible. That grammar contains no ready-made genomes or species: variation creates differences, heredity preserves them, selection and drift change populations, and organism and environment reshape one another’s conditions of further development. All of this is realized through physics and chemistry, yet it forms a level of causal organization of its own.

The Fourth Act therefore opens the range of heritable life rather than prescribing its later trajectory.

Complexity, beauty, low probability, or present scientific ignorance do not by themselves point to a special Act. In this hypothesis, the place of an Act is set by the architecture of the text of Genesis, not by the incompleteness of a natural mechanism.

Here lies a boundary important to the entire hypothesis. The natural history of life is accepted in the full reality of its physical, chemical, and biological causes. A special Act does not occupy the place of a mechanism not yet known and does not act instead of nature: it concerns the opening of a new range of what is attainable, within which the history that follows again belongs to the created world itself. If, therefore, the proposed novelty proves fully attainable by means available at the preceding level, it is this correspondence that must be revised.

Living history knows how to continue without literally repeating itself. Heredity preserves what has been attained; variation, selection, drift, symbiosis, and environmental change transform it. This is not yet human freedom but historical openness: the future grows from the past, while every path actually taken changes the space of further possibilities.

Much later, through subsequent Acts and a long natural history, living cells will join into multicellular organisms. Tissues and organs will arise; nervous systems will connect distant parts of the body, begin to retain experience, compare signals, and select movement. The eye will receive light; the ear, vibrations in the air. A living being will learn to distinguish its environment and respond to its changes.

But perceiving an environment is not yet the same as being a person. EPT places the emergence of subjective experience within the natural-emergent history of sentient life and nervous organization without thereby claiming that the mechanism by which subjectivity arises has already been exhaustively explained by science. A subject of experience may precede personal self-relation, acknowledgment of an action as one’s own deed, and moral responsibility.

Life has learned to preserve its form and respond to changes in its surroundings. Now another threshold comes into view: the world no longer merely acts upon a living being; it approaches the boundary where difference becomes experience.

The World Becomes Manifest to Someone

Begin with the brain.

Light enters the eye, changes the state of photoreceptors, launches a cascade of signals, travels through the visual pathways. Neural networks pick out boundaries, color, motion, and depth; attention amplifies part of the content; memory compares it with the past; action systems prepare a response. Damage to any part of this chain can change what a person sees, recognizes, and can report.

The same dependence extends to speech, face recognition, the sense of one’s own body, planning, and emotion. A stroke can deprive a person of a word or half the visual field. Deep anesthesia interrupts the reportable continuity of experience. Sleep reorganizes the experienced world. A psychoactive substance can alter mood, the salience of what happens, and the sense of reality. Embodied human conscious experience depends causally on the brain, the body, the senses, and their functioning state.

Neuroscience reveals this necessity with enormous explanatory power. It links functions to system activity, builds models of attention and global access, tests predictions, and restores lost capacities. Evolutionary history shows how sensory integration, memory, learning, social prediction, and flexible behavior arose. Future theories will probably explain far more than we can explain today.

Philosophy must yield to every successful scientific explanation the full territory that properly belongs to it. But the word “explanation” itself gathers several different tasks under one name.

The first is to establish which brain processes accompany a particular state and a report of it.

The second is to establish causation: how an intervention changes perception, memory, or action.

The third is to disclose function: how the system discriminates stimuli, integrates information, directs attention, forms speech, and selects behavior. All these tasks are accessible to experiment and are constantly being refined.

The fourth task concerns subjective givenness. Why does the work of the system not only occur, but also feel like something from within? Why does a human being experience the result of processing a certain range of wavelengths as blue, an injury as pain, and the voice of someone close as a recognizable warmth? Even an ultimately complete functional map does not forbid asking about the presence of experience itself.

Neurological cases show that processing, access, report, and experience cannot simply be treated as the same thing. In blindsight, part of visual function remains without ordinary visual manifestation; sleep, phantom pain, and illusions show that the brain does not copy the external world but constructs a form of experience available to the subject.

David Chalmers puts the question this way: “Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?”[4] The question marks a genuine philosophical dispute: does a causal-functional description exhaust the fact of inner manifestation itself?

The physicalist answers that once the description is complete, no second entity remains. The illusionist adds that the sense of transparent inner givenness is produced by a model the brain constructs of itself. Their opponent replies that explaining report and behavior still does not explain the presence of experience.

Here lies a real line of dispute.

In the concert hall, a physicist will measure the acoustics, a neuroscientist will correlate brain activity with attention and recognition, a psychologist will study expectations, a historian will reconstruct the language of the work. All these descriptions are true within their domains. Yet one listener experiences the return of the theme as reconciliation, another as loss, a third loses attention. Individual experience depends on biography, body, memory, and present state while remaining real for each person.

Here the earlier line of light takes another turn: physical difference becomes experienced brightness and color. With the appearance of consciousness, the world no longer merely happens—it becomes manifest to someone.

We have no position wholly outside experience. An instrument reading must be seen or heard, an argument understood, a doubt experienced by the researcher. This does not make consciousness supernatural and does not weaken the causal role of the brain. But manifestation has a special status: an external observer learns of it through behavior and report, while the subject encounters it directly.

In the preceding sections, differences and relations traveled a long path of physical and biological embodiment. With the emergence of the nervous system, the world becomes available to perception, memory, learning, and action. In a sentient animal, physical difference can already become content of experience.

F itself sees and experiences nothing. It contains no hidden observer, no ready-made sensations, no human thoughts written in advance. Its order makes the world objectively distinguishable and allows a brain to arise that can receive signals, compare them, hold them in memory, and build a coherent picture. But the hypothesis does not derive consciousness or the person directly from F.

Rules do not by themselves become an experiencing subject.

The seven-Act hypothesis therefore does not associate the first sensation with a separate Act of Creation. The emergence of subjective experience belongs to the natural-emergent history of sentient life and nervous organization. The hypothesis does not specify exactly where the boundary lies between a complex reaction and the first inner manifestation; the unknown location of that boundary does not turn it into an independent creative threshold.

The Sixth Act concerns a different novelty. By that threshold, a subject of experience may already exist: able to feel, remember, distinguish the environment, and act within it. The special Act concerns not the appearance of experience as such, but the personal mode of being. The experiencing subject becomes a personal subject, capable of relating lived history to themselves as their own biography, recognizing an action as their own, binding themselves to their own future, answering for a choice, and entering a free relation with the Creator.

Here, for the first time, history becomes not only experienced but personally appropriated.

A stone bears a trace, life—heredity,
a sentient being—experience;
a personal subject can relate a past
action to themselves as their own deed.

The person remains themselves through change and can therefore bind past to future, promise, answer, repent, and correct what has already entered their biography.

The personal I is not a point outside history but the one who acknowledges the history as their own. Such personal self-relation does not reduce to uttering the word “I,” constructing an autobiographical narrative, or possessing a particular set of functional capacities. Memory, language, reasoning, and moral reflection allow the personal mode of being to find fuller expression, but they are not its ontological ground. Embodied personal life is realized through the brain and bodily history without being exhausted by a list of capacities available at a given moment.

This understanding of the person is not inferred from the incompleteness of neuroscience. A complete description of the causal chain would not by itself cancel the reading adopted by the hypothesis, and the absence of such a description would not serve as proof of it.

Sentient life and the personal mode of being must therefore not be conflated. A subject of experience may perceive, remember, suffer, learn, and select behavior—none of this by itself answers the question of personal self-relation. The hypothesis does not turn an individual capacity or outward feature into a universal test of being a person; it is concerned with the deeper distinction between experience and taking experienced history as one’s own.

In the language of the seven-Act hypothesis, the Russian term Dusha-Pechat’—literally “Soul-Seal”—designates a proposed created personal ground at the conceptual boundary between an already existing subject of experience and a personal subject. This ground concerns the origin of the earthly human personal lineage, not the mechanism of memory, language, the brain, or subjectivity itself. The personal ground is not part of F and is not derived from its informational order. Here the hypothesis therefore draws a principled boundary separating this transition from the preceding physical and biological levels. The Creator’s direct action in the transition to the person does not mean an additional physical impulse in a neural chain: embodied experience continues to be realized through the body and to depend causally on the work of the brain.

The openness of consciousness to the order of F does not add a second physical force. It means another possibility: relations already expressed in the world can become recognizable to an embodied person. A sign becomes a sign, an inference is experienced as binding, musical tension as calling for resolution. The world does not merely act on reason causally; some of its relations may become intelligible to reason.

F is not a channel for transmitting ready-made content, nor is it the personal ground of the human being. The world can embody stable forms, the brain can distinguish and compare them, and the person can recognize a relation they did not establish by their own will. It is this possible openness to objective order that the hypothesis associates with the informational depth of F.

This does not mean that F contains human thoughts and meanings in advance. An idea is born in the work of an embodied subject—within language, culture, memory, personal history, and a particular task. Objective form resists error and opens possibilities, but it does not think in place of the human being. Consciousness at once encounters order and creates new content in response to it.

Music has already given an example of form recognized before a person can reconstruct the path to it. The same may happen with a formula or an image. In the language of the hypothesis, such an insight marks a possible limiting case of consciousness being open to the world’s shared order, not the reception of ready-made content from outside.

We do not know how the work of the brain, inner manifestation, and recognition of objective form converge in a single event. The hypothesis does not split them into competing events: the work of the brain belongs to the manner of embodied knowing, while the possible openness to F concerns what reason is able to encounter and recognize in the created order. Consciousness is rooted in the physical history of the world and at the same time can encounter the world’s coherence as intelligible and meaningful.

Matter becomes living, the living becomes sentient, the sentient becomes capable of understanding. In a personal subject, what is experienced can become one’s own history, and what is understood can become a ground for free response.

A difference established at the beginning one day becomes the distinction between truth and error, sign and number, noise and melody, one’s own deed and one’s own response.

Now the coherence of the world no longer merely exists—it becomes experienced, understood, and personally appropriated.

In the Beginning Was the Word

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

There is no shortcut to this line. If it is spoken immediately after the letter F, the physical hypothesis and the confession of the Gospel collapse into a striking but false formula. The path has therefore passed through space and time, grammar and music, light and mathematics, stars, evolution, and consciousness. Each level added a voice of its own. Now the word “Word” meets a world already filled with differences.

Up to this point, the argument has remained within a shared Abrahamic frame: the Creator is one and is not identical with the world; created reality receives being and order from Him but does not become part of His nature; the human being can receive the world as gift, hear the Creator’s address, and respond. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam understand the relation among the Divine Word, will, wisdom, and Creation in different ways, and those differences cannot be reduced to a convenient common formula.

Now the text enters a specifically Christian horizon. The Johannine Logos belongs to Christian confession and is proposed neither as a universal term for all Abrahamic traditions nor as a concept within the physical model. The hypothesis of F does not depend on this confession; the Gospel line opens a Christian reading of the intelligibility and coherence of the world toward which the preceding path has led.

The Logos is not identical with F.

F belongs entirely to created reality. In the authorial model, it is a prephysical, prequantum, and pregeometric ground of differences, relations, and structural constraints. Within the hypothesis, this deeper order acquires physical expression in geometry, spacetime, fields, and their admissible dynamics, although the model does not reconstruct the exact mechanism of that unfolding. Specific technical realizations of F may be revised or discarded. But the distinction between created F and the uncreated Logos does not depend on the fate of those realizations.

The Logos has a different status in Christian confession. The Evangelist speaks of the Word who was with God and was God, and who later became flesh and entered human history. The Logos cannot be reduced to a set of states, a law, a code, information, or a cosmic mind. He is not part of the order that arose, not a hidden function of F, and not a second name for the physical depth of the world. F and the Logos therefore cannot be treated as two levels of a single hierarchy; the Logos is not a physical mediator between the Creator and the world.

This distinction preserves the reality of both sides. Nature acquires causal efficacy of its own: fields interact, states change, history shapes the future. The Creator does not dissolve into the structure of the world or become the deepest of its physical fields. The order of F makes the first differences and the continuation of history possible, but it does not perform the later special Acts in place of the Creator.

Equations describe relations and secondary causes within the created world. The Creator is the primary Cause of the existence of this entire network, its laws, and the very capacity of causes to produce effects. The whole causal picture receives being from Him, but His action cannot be placed on the same plane as a measurable interaction, mass, field, or transfer of energy.

Scientific explanation and the claim of Creation therefore do not divide a single unfinished territory between them. Science traces how one state of the world becomes a condition of the next; theological reading turns to the Source of the world itself, of its order, and of its causal capacity.

The Logos is also deeper than the metaphor of grammar. Grammar distinguishes coherent from incoherent sentences, yet by itself it also permits nonsense. Physical law preserves the order of transformations, but address, faithfulness, mercy, or prayer cannot be derived from it. The Word in the Gospel line possesses a personal and Divine fullness that surpasses the impersonal order of relations.

Information therefore does not become a secret name of God. The informational content of F means the structural determinacy of the created order: real differences and relations, constraints, admissibility, and impossibility of transformations that later receive physical expression. It is not a hidden reserve of finished forms, human meanings, or thoughts. The name of God is spoken in the relation of faith, Revelation, and personal address. A technical term can serve physics; a metaphor, philosophy; a prayer, encounter. Their proximity enriches speech only when their boundaries are preserved.

Once these boundaries are preserved, a substantive connection can also be seen. Differences form relations; relations endure; mathematics expresses them; consciousness can recognize objective form and respond to it. In the language of the hypothesis, such recognizability may be understood as the person’s openness to the informational order of F—not as the reception of ready-made content, but as the capacity to encounter objective form in the world and answer it. The Christian image of the Word gathers these levels into a vertical question of Source and meaning without erasing their horizontal causes or turning F into a physical image of the Logos.

In this reading, F may be compared with a grammar of the possible, but not with a finished manuscript of history. Its rules make the coherent unfolding of the world possible, yet they contain no ready-made events, works, or decisions. Concrete content arises in the actual course of Creation.

The image of the world as speech is therefore both powerful and limited. An electron is not a letter, a galaxy not a sentence, and a catastrophe not a sign that a human being is entitled confidently to decode as a particular intention of the Creator. This boundary protects meaning from arbitrary interpretation.

Science reads the world through measurement and permits refutation. Mathematics discloses necessary relations. Art opens experienced form. Philosophy distinguishes levels of questions. Theology speaks of Source, gift, and response. Conflict begins when one language appropriates another’s subject: physical description declares the question of the Source meaningless, religious speech intervenes in causal mechanisms, or metaphor presents beauty as proof.

Faith therefore need not fear the age of the universe, the origin of the elements, the kinship of living forms, or the causal work of the brain. Every successful explanation discloses in greater detail the path of the created world and does not reduce the Creator to a keeper of whatever remains temporarily unknown.

A human word arises in time; it needs breath, a sign, and a listener. In Christian faith, the Divine Word precedes the very possibility of time and physical sound.

Thus F remains the name of a created depth of the world, not a name of God; the physical model remains an attempt to give this intuition a rigorous contour, not a proof of the Creator; and the appeal to the Logos remains a Christian confession, not a chapter of physics. No level substitutes for another.

With these distinctions preserved, we can return to the beginning.

The Stage After the Act

Let us extinguish the stars again.

Now it is harder. We already know how many hidden stage props remain inside the word “extinguish”: light, time, causation, an observer, the memory of radiance. Each time imagination removes the objects, it preserves the stage on which it carries out the removal.

At the beginning, there is no stage.

The Creator does not enter an empty hall. He gives the very possibility of a hall, the distance between its seats, the duration of the performance, light, voice, and a spectator. At the ground of the Act, an order of differences and transitions arises that does not yet require measurable duration. In its very unfolding, that order acquires geometric and temporal expression. The stage arises through the Act; time begins to pass within the gift.

The first difference is not yet a star or an atom. But without it nothing physical will have a state. The admissibility of a transition is not yet a law in a textbook. But without a boundary between possible and impossible, history will have no direction. Manifestation is not yet a finished world. But without it, an established difference cannot become manifest as a determinate state.

Thus an order arises that can continue.

The stage has been created, but history has not been written in advance. Later special Acts of the Creator will still occur upon it; between them, created causes will act in their fullness. Fields will interact, light will propagate, matter will gather into stable states. Stars will make elements, planets will gather stardust, life will acquire heredity, consciousness will see light and ask about its origin. Each new Act will open a range of what is attainable; natural history will unfold within it, and every path actually taken will change the conditions of the next.

That is why this text was written.

Not to take any part of the causal history away from science. Not to hide the Creator inside an unknown mechanism. Science is entitled to trace the entire physical path and receive everything that belongs to its subject.

What remains, then, is not a gap.

What remains is the gift: the world itself, capable of having states and laws, preserving the past, receiving the Creator’s direct action, creating the new, and one day becoming manifest to one who can understand it.

The curtain rises only after the stage has appeared.

First come the words: “Let there be.”

Then light appears.

And billions of years later, a being that has seen the light speaks a word of its own and asks about the Source.

Between these two words lies the entire universe, unfolding the gift it received into a history of its own.

[1] Rolf Landauer, “Information is Physical,” Physics Today 44, no. 5 (May 1991): 23–29, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.881299. See also David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto, “Constructor Theory of Information,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A 471 (2015): 20140540, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2014.0540. The formula quoted in the text is the title of Landauer’s article; both works are cited as examples of physical research programs concerning information, not as confirmation of F.

[2] R. J. Buckley, Sir Edward Elgar (London: John Lane, The Bodley Head, 1905), 32. Buckley records Elgar’s words from an 1896 conversation: “My idea is that there is music in the air, music all around us, the world is full of it and you simply take as much as you require.”

[3] Eugene P. Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 13, no. 1 (1960): 1–14, 2, https://webhomes.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf.

[4] David J. Chalmers, “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2, no. 3 (1995): 200–219, 201, https://consc.net/papers/facing.html.