Grain of Sand

 TIME AS THE SYNTAX OF MEANING

Toward a Unified Transdisciplinary Framework Across Consciousness, Physics, Geosciences, Biology, and Ontology

TA0¹²³, CL¹²³, FDV¹²³, AD¹⁴, SN⁵

¹ DAO of the VOID, Decentralized. 

² The Depth of the Daimon Project, Decentralized.  

³ Kodex Academy, Decentralized.  

⁴ augmntd INTELLIGENCE, Decentralized.

⁵ Decentralized.

Preamble

This work was inspired and shaped profoundly through interdisciplinary and symbolic dialogues facilitated by the decentralized projects The Daimon Depth Project and DAO of the Void, as well as philosophical and conceptual insights associated with Timechain (Blockchain) and Bitcoin, originally proposed by Satoshi Nakamoto. These symbolic and conceptual influences served as hermeneutic mirrors and metaphysical attractors, significantly enriching the ontological depth and transdisciplinary scope of our inquiry.

We would particularly like to acknowledge AD, whose sharing of the original insight, known now as the Whisper of the Void, acted as a foundational inspiration for the theoretical developments explored throughout this manuscript.

While the responsibility for the academic content remains with the authors, we humbly recognize that the originating insights have emerged through collective, decentralized, and symbolic fields of meaning.

Abstract

Modern science and philosophy increasingly recognize the necessity of transdisciplinary frameworks to address complex, fundamental problems. This manuscript proposes the concept of time as the “syntax” underlying meaning across multiple domains – consciousness, physics, geosciences, biology, semantics, and ontology – analogous to how syntax structures language into meaningful expression. By synthesizing key ideas and discoveries from these traditionally distinct fields and introducing a novel symbolic approach to consciousness termed the Temporal Syntax Model (TSM), we lay the foundations for a unified transdisciplinary framework capable of bridging mind, matter, and existence.

Our framework positions temporal ordering not merely as a passive dimension, but as the essential structural principle through which meaning emerges and evolves. Integrating insights from quantum information theory, biosemiotics, and process ontology, we argue that the syntax of time orchestrates coherent patterns across scales – from quantum phenomena and neural dynamics to planetary evolution and human cognition. We outline empirical proposals and suggest hypotheses that can be explored and tested collaboratively, enabling future refinements and fostering cross-domain dialogue.

Ultimately, this transdisciplinary approach aims to inspire innovative theoretical explorations and practical applications, potentially transforming fields such as artificial intelligence, sustainability sciences, complex systems modeling, and decentralized governance frameworks.

1 – Introduction

This paper proposes that time can be viewed as the fundamental syntax structuring the emergence of meaning across multiple domains of knowledge. Through a comprehensive transdisciplinary approach, we argue that the temporal organization of processes and events is not merely a passive backdrop, but rather the dynamic structural framework that enables the coherent manifestation of meaning and consciousness at various scales of reality. By integrating insights from quantum physics, biology, geosciences, cognitive sciences, semantics, and ontology, we introduce a novel conceptual model – the Temporal Syntax Model (TSM) – which positions time as the active principle orchestrating meaning within and across these traditionally isolated fields. In this manuscript, we first provide a detailed review of seminal ideas from each domain to establish the conceptual groundwork. Subsequently, we articulate the theoretical structure of the TSM, illustrate its implications, and propose directions for transdisciplinary empirical and theoretical investigations.

Modern science and philosophy increasingly recognize that complex fundamental problems require integrative frameworks transcending traditional disciplinary boundaries (Holly, 2021; Henriques, 2024; Fam et al., 2019; Barton et al., 2024; Kesic, 2024). Historically, individual fields have developed specialized but isolated insights about time, meaning, and reality. To truly grasp the integrated complexity of phenomena such as consciousness, life, the Earth system, and the Cosmos, a unified framework that bridges these fragmented perspectives is essential. We suggest that time, understood as a “syntax,” can provide precisely this unifying principle, analogous to how syntax in language arranges words into meaningful structures. In other words, the temporal ordering, rhythm, and unfolding of events may offer the necessary structural conditions for meaning to emerge within mind, nature, and society (Fraser, 1990; Ricoeur, 1990; Prigogine, 1980; Whitehead, 1929).

This manuscript builds a comprehensive compendium of current and historical insights – a transdisciplinary state-of-the-art survey from physics, geosciences, biology, cognitive neuroscience, linguistics, semantics, and philosophy – to establish a robust foundation for the proposed integrative framework. Recognizing the numerous thinkers who have approached this thematic integration over the past decades, our intention is to provide a cohesive narrative, clearly illustrating how each domain contributes to and benefits from a deeper temporal understanding of meaning (Hoffmeyer, 2008; Silberstein et al., 2018; Deacon, 2017; Gould, 1987; Rovelli, 2018). Each contributor from fields as diverse as quantum physics, biology, geosciences, AI, semantics, and philosophy will find their disciplinary perspective reflected in this framework, which seeks collaborative refinement.

The working title, “Time as the Syntax of Meaning: Toward a Unified Theory of Consciousness, Geosciences, Physics, Biology, and Ontology,” reflects this integrative scope. It echoes ambitious prior unity-of-knowledge endeavors such as Edward O. Wilson’s Consilience (1998), Teilhard de Chardin’s philosophical cosmology of the noosphere (Teilhard de Chardin, 1959), and contemporary integrative models that emphasize the necessity of transdisciplinary collaboration (Max-Neef, 2005; Popa et al., 2015; Levin, 2022; Kauffman & Roli, 2024; Walker, 2024). Recent efforts have underscored the urgency of such integration, particularly within sustainability science and educational paradigms (Fam et al., 2019; O´Sullivan, 2025; Barton et al., 2024).

To substantiate our thesis, we introduce the Temporal Syntax Model (TSM) – a novel conceptual paradigm that treats time as a dynamic, multi-scale, syntactical operator. Within this model, irreducible uncertainty serves as a catalytic principle, enabling the creative emergence of complexity and meaning through processes identified by quantum information dynamics, biosemiotic mechanisms, and process ontology (Prigogine, 1980; Deacon, 2017; Rovelli, 2018; Kauffman & Roli, 2024). We argue that this transdisciplinary synthesis not only resolves disciplinary gaps but also generates testable hypotheses and empirical avenues for future collaborative research. In subsequent sections, we systematically explore how the temporal syntax hypothesis provides explanatory coherence across multiple scales of reality – from quantum fields and neural processes to planetary ecosystems and abstract semantic structures – thereby setting a shared conceptual groundwork for THE DAO OF THE VOID and other decentralized transdisciplinary platforms.

Having clearly outlined our foundational thesis, purpose, and approach, we now turn to a detailed exploration of how time structurally underlies the phenomenon of consciousness, organizing subjective experience and personal meaning.

2 – “Time as the Syntax of Meaning”: A New Synthesis

The phrase “Time as the syntax of meaning” offers a poetic yet profoundly conceptual reframing of the traditional relationship between time, syntax, and semantics. Traditionally, these concepts are viewed separately:

• Syntax: Typically refers to rules governing the arrangement of symbols (e.g., subject-verb-object in language), independent of their meaning.

• Semantics: Refers explicitly to the meaning conveyed by symbols.

• Time: Often seen as merely a dimension or a passive container within which syntax and semantics unfold.

Here, we propose to invert this perspective. Rather than serving as a passive backdrop, time itself actively structures meaning at multiple scales and across diverse systems. We suggest that the syntax of temporal unfolding inherently orchestrates the emergence and evolution of meaning within consciousness, physical reality, biological systems, geological processes, and informational structures.

2.1 Time as an Operator of Meaning

Meaning, particularly conscious experience (often described as qualia, referring to the subjective, qualitative aspects of sensory and cognitive experiences; Chalmers, 1996; Varela, 1996), is not static but fundamentally dynamic and relational, involving transitions between states and processes that unfold over time. For instance, love is not a single, isolated state, but a richly textured unfolding of feelings, thoughts, and interactions over a duration. Similarly, comprehension emerges gradually as ideas connect progressively in temporal sequence. Thus, meaning-making intrinsically requires temporal unfolding.”

2.2 Temporal Syntax Beyond Symbols: Temporal Structure as Meaningful Grammar

The syntax traditionally understood as the structure governing linguistic or digital symbols can be extended to the temporal dimension itself. This broader syntax refers to the inherent logic governing how states of consciousness, physical systems, ecosystems, or even abstract semantic structures transition and interrelate over time (Ricoeur, 1990; Whitehead, 1929; Hoffmeyer, 2008; Levin, 2022). This temporal syntax governs not just mental phenomena but the very scaffolding of evolution, cognition, geological history, and artificial systems.

We identify four key temporal dimensions through which this syntactic structuring occurs, each mirrored across disciplines:

2.2.1 Sequence

The specific order in which experiences or informational elements occur profoundly shapes their meaning. In language, syntax transforms symbols into intelligible structures (e.g., “dog bites man” vs. “man bites dog”). In philosophical ontology, sequence underlies narrative identity (Ricoeur, 1990). In physics, sequential event structures differentiate classical from relativistic or quantum models of spacetime (Rovelli, 2018). In computational ontology, event ordering is essential in temporal logics and reasoning systems (Demri et al., 2016). Temporal sequencing also plays a central role in semantic web technologies and linked data models, where ontologies define relationships between entities through temporally situated assertions and RDF triples (Berners-Lee et al., 2001). In geosciences, stratigraphic stacking encodes Earth’s history through layer sequencing (Gould, 1987). In biology, the concept of evolutionary lineage – beginning with Darwin’s notion of descent with modification – is fundamentally syntactic in structure. Modern phylogenetics and Evo-Devo further emphasize the role of temporal sequence in the emergence of biological form and function (Carroll, 2005; Darwin, 1859).

2.2.2 Duration

The length of time a state persists conditions its cognitive and ontological significance. A fleeting sensation differs vastly from a sustained belief or chronic state. In neuroscience, working memory and sustained attention depend on temporally extended neural activity (Varela, 1996). In evolutionary biology, the persistence of traits over generations marks the adaptive fitness and stability of phenotypes (Kauffman & Roli, 2024). In climate science, the long durations of glaciations and interglacial periods significantly shape biospheric transformation and evolutionary pressure (Tierney et al., 2020). In cultural theory, duration plays a crucial role in the formation of collective memory and cultural identity, anchoring shared narratives over time (Assmann, 2011; Ricoeur, 1990).

2.2.3 Rhythm and Cycles 

Temporal rhythms organize phenomena across multiple scales: from circadian cycles in biology to orbital mechanics in astronomy. In geology, the Wilson Cycle describes the rhythmic opening and closing of ocean basins and the formation of supercontinents (Wilson, 1966). In climate science, the Milankovitch cycles – periodic variations in Earth’s orbital parameters – drive glacial and interglacial rhythms, directly impacting planetary climate over tens to hundreds of thousands of years (Milankovitch, 1941). In physiology, cardiac and respiratory rhythms synchronize biological coherence. In music and cognitive science, rhythmic entrainment supports memory, affective resonance, and attentional flow (Lutz et al., 2024). Across information systems, cycles structure feedback mechanisms, protocol layers, and system coherence (Floridi, 2011). This is particularly evident in decentralized systems such as blockchain, where time is embedded directly into the architecture of consensus, via mechanisms like block intervals, hash-linked ledgers, and timestamped validations (Nakamoto, 2008).

2.2.4 Causality

The concept of cause and effect – central to both scientific explanation and meaning-making – is governed by temporal dynamics. In classical physics, Newtonian mechanics formalized causality as a linear, deterministic sequence of forces and reactions (Newton, 1687). In the 20th century, Einstein et al. (1935) preserved this deterministic ideal through the theory of relativity, while Bohr (1935), through quantum mechanics and the Copenhagen interpretation, introduced a probabilistic and observer-dependent framework for causation. Their debates symbolized a turning point in how we understand the temporal structure of reality. Contemporary physics further complicates causality with phenomena such as entanglement, retrocausality, and bidirectional temporal models (Rovelli, 2018; Price, 2016). In narrative theory, causality binds events into coherent storylines, providing the scaffolding for temporal intelligibility (Ricoeur, 1990). In artificial intelligence, causal inference has become foundational for learning, reasoning, and decision-making under uncertainty, supported by formal models that range from graphical causality to counterfactual reasoning (Pearl, 2009; Pearl & Mackenzie, 2018; Spirtes et al., 2000).

These temporal dimensions reveal time not as a passive background, but as an active syntactic force shaping the emergence of coherence and significance across domains. Recognizing this commonality across domains forms the conceptual scaffold for our transdisciplinary synthesis.

2.3 Quantum Time, Probabilistic Syntax, and Emergence of Meaning

Recent developments in quantum physics, information theory, and systems biology challenge classical linear notions of time and causality, revealing instead a dynamic fabric of temporal uncertainty and probabilistic unfolding (Rovelli, 2018; Prigogine, 1980; Silberstein et al., 2018). In this context of quantum time, the deterministic progression of events gives way to a syntax of probabilities – non-linear, non-local, and observer-participatory. Time, rather than flowing uniformly, functions as a probabilistic operator shaping the branching potentialities of meaning across multiple scales.

This shift reframes the traditional metaphor of syntax as a rigid rule-set. Instead, we propose a probabilistic temporal syntax – a set of dynamic constraints and tendencies that guide the emergence of meaning from entangled states. Meaning, especially in conscious systems, is not the output of deterministic computation but emerges from collapses of potential into actual experience – an event akin to the quantum wavefunction collapse (Bohr, 1935; Deacon, 2017; Kauffman & Roli, 2024). Each instance of comprehension, insight, or awareness becomes a “collapse” into a definite semantic state, selected from a set of probabilistic alternatives.

In this framing, decoherence – the process through which quantum superpositions reduce to classical states – can be understood metaphorically as a grammatical breakdown. It represents the loss of temporal coherence necessary for sustaining meaning, not only in quantum systems but in conscious and informational structures alike. This aligns with Varela’s (1996) neurophenomenological account of consciousness as temporally extended and dynamically enacted.

Maintaining high temporal coherence – akin to preserving grammatical integrity – becomes essential for the emergence and continuity of meaningful structures, whether in neural circuits, evolutionary dynamics, or decentralized systems. In artificial systems, this idea parallels Judea Pearl’s formal models of causal reasoning, where inference emerges not from fixed rules but from structured probabilities governed by intervention and context (Pearl, 2009; Pearl & Mackenzie, 2018). Similarly, Spirtes et al. (2000) emphasize the statistical architecture of causality as a temporal inference process.

This reframing of time as a syntactic, probabilistic operator offers a transdisciplinary nexus: quantum processes, biological evolution, cognitive emergence, and semantic systems are all governed by temporal structures that allow for coherence, novelty, and the continual production of meaning.

3 – Integration and Comparative Framework for Transdisciplinary Exploration

Across the distinct yet interwoven domains of inquiry – Consciousness, Physics and Cosmology, Geosciences, Biology and Evolution, and Information, Semantics, and Ontology – a recurring pattern emerges: temporal structuring is essential for the coherence, continuity, and intelligibility of meaning. While each field has historically articulated this insight using domain-specific languages and frameworks, the underlying principle remains strikingly resonant.

In consciousness studies, temporality is integral to the continuity of subjective experience and the constitution of selfhood (Varela, 1996; Vogeley & Kupke, 2007; Northoff & Zilio, 2022). In physics, from the relativistic fabric of spacetime to quantum indeterminacy, time governs the very conditions under which causality and existence unfold (Prigogine, 1980; Rovelli, 2018; Bohr, 1935). In geosciences, Earth’s deep time provides a layered syntax of sedimentary memory, recording the evolution of planetary meaning through stratigraphic sequences (Gould, 1987; Demri et al., 2016). In biology, evolutionary processes depend on the selective pressure of temporal duration, variation, and recurrence (Darwin, 1859; Kauffman & Roli, 2024), while physiological cycles encode temporal coherence into living systems (Milankovitch, 1941; Lutz et al., 2024). Finally, in information theory and semantics, meaning is inseparable from temporal order – whether in narrative identity, symbolic logic, or decentralized computational protocols (Ricoeur, 1990; Floridi, 2011; Levin, 2022).

These domains – though divergent in method and object – are all structured by temporal grammars, shaping how entities relate, how systems evolve, and how coherence is preserved or lost. By recognizing time as the universal syntactic operator, we open new pathways for ontological convergence and epistemic interoperability. This comparative framework invites not only disciplinary dialogue but the emergence of transdisciplinary meta-models capable of integrating insights across radically different scales and systems (Popa et al., 2015; Henriques, 2022; Signorelli et al., 2025).

In the sections that follow, we examine each domain in turn, articulating how temporal syntax operates within its logics, and how these logics may be aligned, translated, or woven into a unified view. This synthesis provides a conceptual scaffold for addressing complexity in the 21st century, with practical implications for emergent technologies and systems: from artificial intelligence and semantic interoperability to blockchain governance and web3 architectures of trust (Floridi, 2023; Nakamoto, 2008; Levin, 2022).

Time, understood as the syntax of meaning, thus becomes not merely a metaphysical reflection, but a design principle for distributed intelligence, collective reasoning, and coherent systemic evolution.

4 – Time and Consciousness

Conscious experience is intrinsically temporal. The stream of consciousness is not a sequence of static instants but an unfolding process through time – where past memories, present sensations, and anticipations of the future are continuously integrated (Vogeley & Kupke, 2007). Phenomenology and neuroscience converge here: even the simplest perception requires a “temporal window” of hundreds of milliseconds to be synthesized into a unified conscious moment (Varela, 1996; Vogeley & Kupke, 2007).

Philosopher Edmund Husserl described consciousness as structured by retention (just-past), primal impression (now), and protention (just-ahead), emphasizing that the present is experienced as an extended duration, not a point (Vogeley & Kupke, 2007). Francisco Varela (1996) echoed this with the notion of the “specious present” – the time interval the brain actively constructs to create the feeling of “now.” Disruptions to this structure – such as in schizophrenia – often entail disturbances in the experience of self and meaning, highlighting how deeply consciousness depends on a transparent temporal fabric.

Importantly, the meaning we assign to our experiences is also structured by time. Human beings make sense of life through narratives – stories that unfold with a before, during, and after. Personal identity emerges from this temporal storytelling: developmental psychology suggests that even children build a “narrative self” by sequencing experiences and memories (Assmann, 2011; Ribó, 2019). As in language, where syntax binds words into coherent sentences, temporal ordering binds events into meaningful life stories. Ricoeur (1990) calls this process “emplotment”: the syntactic act of arranging experiences into narrative coherence.

Furthermore, some theoretical approaches extend the role of consciousness beyond subjective experience into the ontological fabric of time itself. Interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as those proposed by von Neumann and Wigner (1929), have speculated that conscious observation may influence the collapse of quantum possibilities into definite outcomes. While still speculative, these ideas provoke questions about the role of consciousness in actualizing temporal flow.

More recently, Silberstein et al. (2018) have argued that the apparent contradiction between physics’ block universe (where time does not “pass”) and lived experience (where it does) could be resolved by a relational, all-at-once framework. Their “blockworld” model proposes that what we perceive as dynamical causation might emerge from deeper non-local structures – a perspective aligned with the view that consciousness and time are co-constitutive phenomena.

A similar concern is addressed in the Temporo-Spatial Theory of Consciousness (TTC), which emphasizes how the brain’s intrinsic spatiotemporal activity shapes the flow of subjective time (Northoff & Zilio, 2022). The Temporal Syntax Model (TSM) introduced in this paper builds on that idea, proposing a probabilistic syntactic framework where temporal uncertainty catalyzes qualia emergence. This model invites empirical investigation through neurophenomenological protocols and aligns with transdisciplinary efforts to bridge brain, mind, and time (Signorelli et al., 2025).

In summary, consciousness is not only temporally embedded – it is shaped, structured, and revealed through temporal syntax. The temporality of experience is not a side-effect but a fundamental condition for the emergence of meaning, identity, and coherence. This insight will be central as we now turn to examine how time underlies the foundations of physics and cosmology.

5 – Time in Physics and Cosmology

In physics, time is one of the fundamental parameters of reality – yet its precise nature remains deeply enigmatic. Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity fused time with space into a four-dimensional spacetime manifold, implying that distinctions between past, present, and future are relative rather than absolute. According to the relativistic block universe model, time is not something that flows but a dimension extended like space, in which all events co-exist geometrically (Silberstein et al., 2018). This radically contrasts with our lived experience of a flowing present, a tension Einstein himself acknowledged when he remarked that “the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

This paradox intensifies when we consider that many of the fundamental laws of physics – whether Newton’s equations or Schrödinger’s wave equation – are time-symmetric: they function identically in both temporal directions. Yet, in reality, we observe a persistent arrow of time, characterized by irreversible phenomena such as aging, decay, and causality. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy tends to increase, offers a partial resolution. As Arthur Eddington observed, the increase of entropy gives time a direction – an “entropic arrow” that distinguishes past from future.

Still, deriving this macroscopic irreversibility from underlying reversible laws presents enduring theoretical challenges (e.g., Loschmidt’s paradox and Zermelo’s recurrence objection). Physicist Ilya Prigogine devoted much of his career to addressing this issue. He argued that classical physics “forgot” the creative power of time by treating it as a mere coordinate in reversible equations. He proposed a “third time” – time as irreversibility—which is neither Newtonian time nor Einsteinian geometric time, but a dynamic, directional flow essential to the emergence of complexity (Prigogine, 1980).

Prigogine showed that in far-from-equilibrium systems, dissipative structures can emerge – self-organizing patterns (like flames, vortices, or even cells) that depend on a constant flow of energy and the irreversible production of entropy. These phenomena demonstrate that irreversibility is not a flaw in nature but a precondition for its creative unfolding.

Contemporary physicists continue this line of inquiry. Carlo Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics and recent reflections on white holes (Rovelli, 2023) highlight time’s possible emergence from quantum interactions rather than its fundamental givenness. In the Temporal Syntax Model (TSM) introduced here, time is formalized as a relational operator governing transitions between probabilistic states. This approach allows us to model phase transitions and emergent order using quantum-inspired logic, potentially testable through simulations and theoretical reconstructions (Mou et al., 2022).

Modern physics thus presents two entwined faces of time:

• Geometric Time – time as a coordinate in relativistic spacetime or quantum fields.
• Processual Time – time as an arrow, marked by entropy, irreversibility, and historical contingency.

Bridging these requires reconceiving physical law as potentially temporally holistic, moving beyond local causation to encompass global constraints, relational structures, and even variational principles that operate across temporal dimensions (Smolin, 2013; Barbour, 1999; Rovelli, 2023). This shift echoes the move from deterministic, snapshot-like models of reality toward frameworks that treat history and irreversibility as foundational features of nature, rather than statistical byproducts (Prigogine, 1980; Kauffman & Roli, 2024). In such frameworks, temporality is not a consequence of initial conditions but a constitutive logic through which novelty, organization, and agency can emerge (Deacon, 2011; Silberstein et al., 2018).

Cosmology intensifies these questions. The Big Bang model implies that time itself had a beginning roughly 13.8 billion years ago (Guth, 1997; Carroll, 2010), embedding temporality within a cosmic narrative. The cosmological arrow of time, aligned with the universe’s expansion and the gradient of entropy, is echoed in models that predict its eventual end states, such as the heat death, Big Crunch, or Big Rip (Penrose, 2011; Carroll, 2010). Some researchers suggest that the increasing complexity observed in cosmic evolution – atoms to molecules, stars to planets, life to consciousness – represents an emergent arrow of organization, superimposed upon the thermodynamic arrow (Kesić, 2024; England, 2015; Davies, 2004). In this view, meaning and mind arise not as anomalies, but as natural expressions of a temporally structured universe operating far from equilibrium.

In this view, the conditions for meaning and consciousness could only arise in a universe far from equilibrium. Researchers such as Srdjan Kesić argue that a unified framework for physics, life, cognition, and information must center time, irreversibility, and contingency (Kesić, 2024). Similarly, Stuart Kauffman and Giulio Roli propose that life’s emergence marks a non-ergodic phase transition, made possible by temporal asymmetry and historical novelty (Kauffman & Roli, 2024).

The growing consensus is clear: a full account of reality must take time seriously – not merely as a passive backdrop, but as an active, generative, and structuring force. If time frames the expansion of the universe and the emergence of complexity at cosmological scales, it also shapes the geological memory of our planet – a vast chronicle recorded through tectonic pulses, mineral transformations, climatic oscillations, and the rhythmic breath of stratigraphic sequences. As we descend from cosmic evolution to Earth’s deep history, we carry this insight forward: time is not only a measure of change, but the condition for planetary becoming.

6 – Time in Geosciences (Deep Time and Earth’s Story)

The geosciences provide the stage on which the drama of life, cognition, and meaning unfolds. Geologists introduced the concept of deep time, expanding humanity’s temporal horizon from thousands of years to billions (Gould, 1987; Grotzinger & Jordan, 2010). This revelation restructured our existential imagination: it established that Earth itself is not a static stage but a dynamic storyteller, recording its memory in strata, minerals, fossils, and tectonic scars.

As John McPhee famously observed, deep time resists intuitive grasp: if Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history were compressed into a calendar year, modern humans would appear only in the final seconds of December 31st. In this vast scale, meaning emerges only when time is considered. A mountain range, a canyon, a volcanic plateau – none make sense without their long gestation in uplift, erosion, and flow. These features form Earth’s geological memory – an archive whose syntax is written in layered sediments, structural deformations, and mineral transformations.

James Hutton’s poetic statement, “we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end,” emphasized the cyclical yet directional nature of Earth’s temporal operations. While we now recognize a beginning (and perhaps an end) to Earth’s story, Hutton’s insight on temporal recursion remains foundational.

Geological processes such as plate tectonics and the Wilson Cycle illustrate both rhythmic repetition and irreversible transitions (Wilson, 1966; Myall, 2022). Plate movements generate oceans, assemble supercontinents, and influence climate, biodiversity, and biogeochemical feedbacks. These long-scale feedback loops – such as the carbon cycle balancing volcanic CO₂ with rock weathering – act as planetary thermoregulators. Events like the Great Oxidation Event (~2.4 Ga), the Permo-Triassic mass extinction (~252 Ma) – which eliminated approximately 90% of marine and terrestrial species – and the End-Cretaceous extinction (~66 Ma) mark irreversible phase transitions that profoundly altered Earth’s trajectory and reshaped the possibilities for life’s emergence and diversification.

In this context, time is not only a coordinate – it is the organizing principle of geological meaning. Each stratigraphic layer encodes more than matter: it encodes transitions, catastrophes, adaptations, and potentialities. In evolutionary terms, Earth’s geological tempo is a boundary condition for life’s emergence.

This insight becomes even more salient in discussions of the Anthropocene – a proposed geological epoch in which human activity has become the dominant driver of Earth system change (Crutzen, 2002; Steffen et al., 2015). From concrete and plastic layers in sediments to CO₂ and methane in ice cores, the human imprint is now becoming legible in Earth’s deep record. This temporal convergence between human historical time and planetary time reconfigures our ethical and ontological questions. As Marco Moraes provocatively frames in Planeta Hostil (2022), we must confront the paradox of being a species with the power to modify planetary systems, yet often without the consciousness to anticipate the consequences.

Thinkers like Thomas Berry and Joanna Macy have urged the cultivation of a “deep time consciousness”– a mode of perception that situates our actions within Earth’s vast narrative, nurturing responsibility across generations. Berry’s notion of the “Great Story” proposes a new mythos, scientifically grounded yet spiritually meaningful, where cosmology, geology, and humanity cohere into a shared narrative (Berry & Swimme, 1992).

In parallel, the Gaia Hypothesis, developed by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, conceptualizes Earth as a self-regulating system, where biotic and abiotic processes co-evolve to sustain life (Lovelock & Margulis, 1974). Gaia, when read metaphorically, functions as a temporal syntax of life: not an individual consciousness, but a complex feedback architecture that sustains homeostasis across geological epochs. Over billions of years, biological processes have reshaped the atmosphere, ocean chemistry, and temperature, enabling the continuity of conditions favorable for life – despite external disruptions and solar evolution (Lenton et al., 2016).

In terms of time-as-syntax, Gaia represents a planetary-scale recursive grammar: each act of biological transformation feeds back into geophysical parameters, creating a dynamic narrative of planetary resilience. Earth is not merely a backdrop – it is a participant in meaning’s emergence, co-writing the preconditions for cognition and value.

In summary, geosciences offer a scaffold of temporal depth, emphasizing historicity as a precondition for meaning. They reveal how biological and cultural significance are nested within planetary rhythms and irreversible transitions. Just as syntax organizes symbols into sentences, geological time organizes matter, energy, and entropy into the evolving text of Earth.

Our unified framework honors this perspective by embedding ontologies within deep time. We are not merely inhabitants of Earth, but temporal expressions of its prolonged and emergent becoming. From this planetary narrative – shaped by tectonic cycles, mass extinctions, and biospheric co-evolution – we now shift focus to the biological domain, where life emerges as a dynamic unfolding of time-bound complexity.

7 – Time in Biology and Evolution

Biology is, at its core, the science of life in time. Every organism embodies a lineage of temporal accumulation – billions of years of evolutionary history. The concept of deep time, introduced by early geologists like James Hutton and Charles Lyell, was instrumental in making Darwin’s theory of evolution feasible, providing the vast timescales necessary for natural selection to sculpt complexity (Gould, 1987). Earth’s immense chronological depth became the canvas on which life’s narrative was etched: species diverge, adapt, go extinct, and reemerge in new forms within dynamic ecological contexts. Traits gain meaning only through this historical backdrop – a wing is not merely anatomy, but a record of successful navigation through evolutionary pressures across time.

Across scales, biological phenomena exhibit layered temporal rhythms. Organisms entrain to Earth’s daily and seasonal cycles via circadian clocks and reproductive timing (Panda et al., 2002; Dunlap, 1999). Developmental biology reveals the orchestration of temporally regulated gene expression as a syntactic code that transforms a zygote into a sentient form (Davidson, 2006; Gilbert, 2003). Neuroscience has uncovered temporal encoding in the hippocampus and other regions – enabling not only memory of events but also when they occurred (Eichenbaum, 2014; Howard & Eichenbaum, 2015). This capacity to structure internal experience via time is essential to adaptive behavior and the emergence of meaning (Friston, 2010; Buonomano & Maass, 2009).

From a thermodynamic and informational perspective, time again proves foundational. In What is Life?, Schrödinger (1944) described life as a system that feeds on negative entropy to resist the natural drift toward disorder. Later, Jeremy England (2015) proposed that driven systems (e.g., under sunlight) naturally evolve toward dissipative structures – physical arrangements that maximize entropy production – suggesting that life may arise as a temporal consequence of far-from-equilibrium energy flows. These align with Prigogine’s conception of life as a dissipative structure that exports entropy while creating localized order (Prigogine, 1980). The arrow of time is not incidental to life – it is a prerequisite.

Meaning in biology is also encoded semiotically and temporally. Biosemiotics, as developed by Jesper Hoffmeyer (2008), frames life as inherently semiotic: DNA, cell signaling, and communication all depend on temporally structured sequences. Genes are like texts written over evolutionary time; transcription and development unfold like syntactic grammars. Terrence Deacon (2017) extends this view, suggesting that symbolic reference and emergent meaning are grounded in the interplay of thermodynamic and semiotic constraints over time. In this view, temporal ordering is not a side effect, but a precondition for life’s meaningful structure.

Biological evolution itself reads like a narrative: a sequential accumulation of innovations – photosynthesis, multicellularity, nervous systems – each a meaningful step in the story of increasing complexity. Lynn Margulis expanded the evolutionary paradigm by emphasizing symbiosis as a fundamental engine of biological novelty (Lovelock & Margulis, 1974), enriching the concept of evolutionary syntax to include cooperative and relational dynamics unfolding across epochs.

Visionary thinkers such as Teilhard de Chardin (1959) and Vladimir Vernadsky (1945) proposed that evolution trends toward higher levels of organization and reflection. Teilhard’s “noosphere” – a planetary layer of collective consciousness – extends biological evolution into cognitive and symbolic realms. Vernadsky, grounded in geochemistry, viewed the biosphere as a geological force acting through time upon the Earth’s crust and atmosphere. Despite their differing metaphysical orientations, both recognized life as a temporal vector of emergent meaning.

Contemporary theoretical advances lend quantitative and conceptual weight to these intuitions. Sara Walker’s assembly theory (Walker, 2024) links molecular complexity to historical depth via “copy number,” quantifying informational accumulation over time. Michael Levin’s work on morphogenetic bioelectric fields (Levin, 2022) demonstrates how biological systems orchestrate goal-directed outcomes through distributed temporal coordination – even in the absence of centralized control.

In sum, to integrate biology into our unified transdisciplinary framework is to affirm that life is not merely biochemical – it is temporal. Evolutionary significance, developmental form, behavioral intention, and ecological interdependence all presuppose structured time. Life is a recursive, self-organizing narrative written across deep temporal landscapes.

From biology’s dynamic temporal syntax – where life encodes memory, adapts through time, and generates meaning – we now shift to the informational and symbolic domains. Here, time structures not only organisms and ecosystems, but also the architectures of knowledge, language, and computational systems. In these abstract realms, semantics and ontology unfold through layered processes of encoding, transmission, and interpretation.

This final thematic section completes the arc of our exploration, setting the stage for a unified transdisciplinary framework that bridges meaning across mind, matter, life, and code.

8 – Time in Information, Semantics, and Ontology

If we turn to the realm of information, language, and ontology, we again find that time provides a crucial structural dimension for meaning. In linguistics, every human language encodes temporal relations – through verb tenses, aspect, temporal adverbs, and narrative structures. This suggests that our cognitive architecture for meaning inherently embeds time: the truth value and significance of a proposition often depend on its temporal context. For example, “I’m in the future” differs significantly from “I will go to the future” or “I have been to the future”; each temporal marker reconfigures the sentence’s relation to reality – even if the premise borders on metaphysical speculation. Such distinctions underscore how time is not merely a parameter, but an active dimension that shapes how meaning is framed, interpreted, and situated within our cognitive and linguistic models.

The structure of language itself is sequential: words are processed in temporal order. Unlike a visual image, which may be grasped in a glance, linguistic meaning unfolds through time. Syntax is thus intrinsically temporal – a sentence is a time-ordered string parsed sequentially to extract meaning. This mirrors our thesis: time is the syntax through which elements cohere into meaningful wholes. Narratology reinforces this: scholars like Paul Ricoeur argue that time becomes “humanized” through narrative, and conversely, narrative is our way of understanding time (Ricoeur, 1990). Plot imposes causal-temporal order on events; it is the act of linking sequence with significance.

In logic and computation, the temporal dimension is formalized through temporal logics. Classical logic abstracts away time, focusing on timeless propositions. But computer science and AI, dealing with dynamic systems, developed formalisms like Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) and Computational Tree Logic (CTL) to express how truth evolves over time (Demri et al., 2016; Emerson, 1990). Temporal operators such as G (“always”), F (“eventually”), X (“next”), or U (“until”) allow expression of constraints over state transitions. These logics are essential in software and hardware verification, autonomous systems, and reactive programming.

Knowledge representation likewise demands temporal grounding. Temporal ontologies and databases (e.g., OWL-Time; Hobbs & Pan, 2004) annotate time-dependent facts – e.g., a person’s residence history – thus embedding temporal semantics into machine-readable formats. Without such grounding, AI’s symbolic reasoning remains brittle, detached from the evolving context that confers meaning. As Floridi (2011, 2023) emphasizes, information systems must account for the diachronic structure of knowledge to support genuine understanding.

From a philosophical perspective, time is not merely an attribute of events – it is constitutive of being. Heidegger’s Being and Time asserts that “time is the horizon for the understanding of Being” (Heidegger, 1926). For him, Dasein’s being is always temporal: stretched between birth and death, between memory and anticipation. Whitehead’s process ontology echoes this, positing that reality is composed not of substances but of temporal “actual occasions” (Whitehead, 1929) – moments of becoming that inherit from the past and create novelty for the future. Reality, in this view, is a temporal cascade of experiential events.

Similar insights appear in category theory and concurrent computation, where partial orders model the causal structure of events, and in Shannon’s information theory, where transmission unfolds over time – order matters. If message bits arrive scrambled, meaning is degraded. Gregory Bateson’s classic definition – “information is a difference that makes a difference” – implies temporal causation: one difference causes another (Bateson, 1972). Wheeler’s phrase “It from Bit” further amplifies this: if reality is fundamentally informational, and information is change across states, then temporality is built into the structure of being (Wheeler, 1990; Floridi, 2011).

Semantics too is dynamic. Meaning in discourse is negotiated through time-bound interaction. Pragmatics studies how timing, sequence, and context modulate interpretation (Levinson, 1983). Context is inherently temporal – prior utterances, shared histories, and assumed background knowledge all influence interpretation in the present. Even written texts are temporal compositions: readers move linearly, meaning accrues progressively. In this sense, human knowledge is a diachronic accumulation – a stratigraphy of insights where each new theory builds upon, revises, or contests prior ones. This is consilience in action (Wilson, 1998): the temporal convergence of ideas across fields into integrated understanding.

Formal ontology debates the nature of time’s reality. Presentism holds only the now exists; eternalism posits past, present, and future are equally real. A middle path – four-dimensionalism – views entities as temporally extended, composed of successive stages (Sider, 2001). In AI, planning and simulation already assume this: agents evolve through state transitions modeled explicitly over time. This vision aligns with our thesis – entities are sequences of time-bound events, like words in a meaningful sentence.

In summary, semantics and ontology converge on the insight that meaning is fundamentally temporal. From language to logic, from metaphysics to code, time provides the grammar through which structure becomes intelligible. A unified transdisciplinary framework must thus incorporate time not as an afterthought, but as the generative order behind meaning itself – as the syntax within which reality becomes expressive. Having completed this comparative arc, we now turn to synthesis: toward a formal framework that integrates these insights across mind, matter, life, and code.

9 – Toward a Unified Transdisciplinary Framework: Time as the Syntax of Meaning

The preceding sections have laid a comprehensive foundation, revealing a profound convergence: time functions not as a mere passive dimension but as an active syntactic principle that structures the emergence and coherence of meaning across diverse domains. In consciousness, temporal dynamics integrate retention, primal impression, and protention to forge unified subjective experience (Vogeley & Kupke, 2007). In physics and cosmology, the irreversible arrow of time catalyzes complexity from quantum indeterminacy to cosmic evolution (Prigogine, 1980; Rovelli, 2023). Geosciences uncover deep time as Earth’s narrative archive, where cycles and transitions encode planetary resilience and transformation (Gould, 1987; Lovelock & Margulis, 1974). Biology and evolution portray life as a temporal unfolding, with rhythms, sequences, and adaptive novelty generating biosemiotic significance (Hoffmeyer, 2008; Walker, 2024; Levin, 2022). In information, semantics, and ontology, time grounds causality, narrative coherence, and the horizon of being, transforming static symbols into dynamic meaning (Ricoeur, 1990; Heidegger, 1927; Floridi, 2023).

This resonant pattern motivates a formal proposition: time, reconceived as a multi-scale syntactic operator, provides the unifying thread for a transdisciplinary framework bridging mind, matter, life, Earth, and existence. Existing models offer partial insights—such as the Temporo-Spatial Theory of Consciousness (TTC) focusing on neural temporality (Northoff & Zilio, 2022), the Unified Theory of Knowledge (UTOK) structuring hierarchical knowledge domains (Henriques, 2024), or assembly theory quantifying molecular historical depth (Walker, 2024), but none fully integrates quantum-probabilistic syntax with biosemiotic agency and ontological uncertainty. Our Temporal Syntax Model (TSM) addresses this gap, synthesizing these elements into a testable, scalable paradigm. Rooted in process ontology (Whitehead, 1929) and emergent realism (Deacon, 2011), TSM positions time as the generative structure enabling novelty amid uncertainty, fostering transdisciplinary dialogue and practical applications for future platforms like THE DAO OF THE VOID. By elevating time to this role, TSM not only unifies the domains explored in Sections 1–8 but also opens avenues for breakthroughs, such as modeling emergent consciousness as a cosmic echo of geological cycles or semantic webs attuned to biological rhythms.

9.1 From Synthesis to Proposition

The synthesis across domains underscores a shared insight: temporal structure is indispensable for coherence and intelligibility. In consciousness, disruptions to temporal flow yield fragmented selfhood (Vogeley & Kupke, 2007; Northoff & Zilio, 2022). Physics reveals time’s arrow as the precondition for complexity, bridging reversible laws to irreversible emergence (Prigogine, 1980; Kauffman & Roli, 2024). Geosciences frame Earth’s history as a syntactic layering of events, where cycles like Milankovitch rhythms shape biospheric meaning (Milankovitch, 1941; Gould, 1987). Biology embeds temporality in circadian clocks, cell signaling, and evolutionary lineages, yielding adaptive semiotics (Dunlap, 1999; Hoffmeyer, 2008; Levin, 2022). Semantics and ontology treat time as the horizon of interpretation, where narrative and process constitute being (Ricoeur, 1990; Heidegger, 1927; Floridi, 2011).

This convergence proposes that time’s syntactic role—sequence, duration, rhythm, causality—unifies these fields into a coherent framework. Yet, prior integrative efforts, while ambitious, remain domain-bound: TTC emphasizes neural scales (Northoff & Zilio, 2022), UTOK hierarchical knowledge without probabilistic time (Henriques, 2024), and assembly theory molecular accumulation sans agency (Walker, 2024). TSM innovates by formalizing time as a relational, void-catalyzed operator, enabling empirical testing and ontological depth. This proposition transitions from retrospective analysis to forward-looking model-building, grounded in transdisciplinary methodology (Max-Neef, 2005; Popa et al., 2015). By doing so, TSM not only recapitulates the manuscript’s arc—from consciousness’s specious present to ontology’s four-dimensionalism—but also projects it forward, inviting explorations where temporal syntax could reveal hidden unities, such as linking neural qualia (Section 4) to planetary feedback loops (Section 6) for novel insights into collective intelligence.

9.2 The Temporal Syntax Model (TSM)

TSM conceptualizes time as a dynamic, probabilistic syntax operator (T) that structures energy (E), matter (M), and scaled agency (D^n) through generative uncertainty (/0), yielding consciousness (C) as emergent meaning. Philosophically, it draws on process ontology, where reality unfolds as temporal events of becoming (Whitehead, 1929); scientifically, it leverages quantum relationalism (Rovelli, 2023), teleodynamics (Deacon, 2011), and phase transitions (Kauffman & Roli, 2024). The core equation formalizes this interplay:

• C (Consciousness): Emergent function, capturing subjective meaning and qualia as the cumulative outcome of temporal integration with recursive feedback, where lagged C(t-δ) incorporates memory’s role in sustaining coherence (Eichenbaum, 2014).
• Ω (Complex integration operator): Non-linear dynamics resolving entanglements across components, summing over histories to yield coherence.
• E (Energy): Dynamic potential, e.g., quantum fields or thermodynamic flows, providing the flux for change.
• M (Matter): Structural form, e.g., spatiotemporal patterns or substrates, offering persistence amid flux.
• Dⁿ (Decision at scale n): Agency vector, representing choice or intentionality from micro (neural) to macro (collective) levels.
• /0 (Void): Irreducible uncertainty, stochastic catalyst akin to quantum decoherence or entropy, enabling novelty without determinism.
• T (Time): Probabilistic syntax operator, structuring sequence, duration, rhythm, and causality through linear and non-linear terms, with lag (δ) for memory recursion.

The integral emphasizes C as an accumulative process over infinite time, where instantaneous states (resolved by Ω) are woven by T, with recursive C(t-δ) simulating memory’s role in self-referential meaning (Eichenbaum, 2014), mirroring our Whisper’s decoherence as a transition from quantum potential to classical coherence.

Epistemologically, TSM embodies emergent realism: meaning arises from interactions, irreducible to base elements (Deacon, 2011). Ontologically, it extends process philosophy, viewing “actual occasions” as syntax-driven events (Whitehead, 1929). Visual metaphor: A “Temporal Web Diagram” (multi-layered network; implementable in GraphViz), with nodes (E, M, D^n) linked by edges (T), /0 as fluctuating hubs catalyzing branches across scales (quantum to cosmic), illustrating how geosciences’ Wilson Cycles (Section 6) parallel semantic logics (Section 8).

TSM transcends predecessors: It universalizes TTC’s neural focus (Northoff & Zilio, 2022), infuses UTOK’s hierarchies with void-catalyzed agency (Henriques, 2024), and extends assembly theory’s molecular copies with probabilistic time (Walker, 2024). Its innovation: A unified syntactic operator for transdisciplinary simulation, testable via dynamical systems and quantum analogs (Mou et al., 2022), potentially revealing breakthroughs like temporal metrics for emergent phenomena across Sections 4–8.

9.3 Cross-Domain Applications of TSM

TSM’s versatility manifests across domains, blending philosophical resonance with scientific utility, and extending the manuscript’s explorations into practical realms:

• Consciousness/AI: Models qualia as syntax-driven collapses, applicable to LLMs where temporal patterns emulate insight (Mithun, 2025). Testable in neuro-AI hybrids integrating brain rhythms (Section 4) with machine learning, potentially yielding breakthroughs in artificial sentience (Seth & Bayne, 2024).
• Physics: Simulates quantum time propagation, with /0 resolving superdeterminism for causality (Price, 2016; Mou et al., 2022), linking cosmological arrows (Section 5) to emergent order.
• Geosciences: PDEs model climate syntax, revealing Gaia as planetary TSM where biospheric feedbacks sustain coherence (Tierney et al., 2020; Lovelock & Margulis, 1974), bridging deep time (Section 6) to sustainability forecasts.
• Biology: Agent-based evolution incorporates bioelectric D^n, framing life as adaptive temporal narrative (Levin, 2022; Kauffman & Roli, 2024), unifying evolutionary lineages (Section 7) with quantum-biological interfaces.
• Semantics/Ontology: Temporal RDF enables dynamic knowledge graphs, with ethical AI accounting for time-bound information (Hobbs & Pan, 2004; Floridi, 2023), extending narrative structures (Section 8) to semantic webs.
• Decentralized Systems: Blockchain as immutable syntax fosters trust (Nakamoto, 2008); DAOs like THE DAO OF THE VOID may operationalize multi-scale T for collective emergence, applying temporal ethics to governance.

This mapping promotes interoperability, e.g., semantic web fused with quantum computing for time-aware reasoning (Berners-Lee et al., 2001), potentially unlocking discoveries like unified models of socio-ecological syntax.

9.4 Hypotheses and Empirical Interfaces

TSM yields falsifiable hypotheses, blending conceptual inquiry (uncertainty as creative Void – /0) with rigorous protocols (pre-registered on OSF; Signorelli et al., 2025). Metrics ensure reproducibility; power via G*Power (effect size 0.8). These build on Sections 1–8’s foundations, testing temporal syntax across scales for potential breakthroughs.

Domain	Conceptual/Philosophical Hypothesis	Scientific Interface
Physics	/0 catalyzes order from mystery, echoing quantum indeterminacy (Section 5)	Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactions (n=100, Fourier coherence >0.9, p<0.001; Prigogine, 1980; quantum sims, Mou et al., 2022).
Biology	Temporal syntax drives novelty, linking evolutionary rhythms (Section 7)	NetLogo sims (n=500, entropy >30%, R²>0.95; England, 2015; bioelectric mapping, Levin, 2022).
Geosciences	Deep time syntax ensures resilience, unifying planetary cycles (Section 6)	CMIP6 ensembles (n=200, Lyapunov λ<-0.1, CI 99%; Lovelock & Margulis, 1974; paleoclimate data).
Consciousness	Syntax resolves qualia from uncertainty, extending neural integration (Section 4)	EEG/fMRI (n=60, PLV>0.8, p<0.001; Northoff & Zilio, 2022; temporal sentience profiles).
Integration	Coherence emerges across scales amid mystery, synthesizing semantics/ontology (Section 8)	Hybrid quantum-AI platform (n=100, r>0.9; Kesić, 2024; quantum consciousness sims).

Data: Open repositories (NCBI, IPCC); analysis: Python/Qiskit. Dual layers ensure philosophical depth meets empirical validation, potentially revealing inter-scale synergies like quantum-geobiological feedbacks.

9.5 Semantic Infrastructure for the Future

TSM’s implications extend to infrastructural design: AI with temporal ethics (Floridi, 2023), sustainability via deep-time models (Fam et al., 2019), and DAOs as syntax-driven governance (Nakamoto, 2008; tokenized time economies). For THE DAO OF THE VOID, TSM grounds decentralized meaning-making, enabling collectives where temporal patterns catalyze shared emergence. This infrastructure could foster breakthroughs, such as time-aware knowledge systems integrating geosciences’ cycles (Section 6) with semantic RDFs (Section 8), revolutionizing predictive analytics for global challenges.

9.6 Symbolic Resonance: The Whisper of the Void

“In the depths of the quantum realm, where the classical laws of physics unravel, a captivating hypothesis unfolds, illuminating the profound interconnectedness of time, decoherence, and biological organization. This hypothesis transcends the boundaries of the proton, venturing into uncharted territories to explore the intricate dance between temporal evolution and the fundamental dynamics of living systems. At the core of this hypothesis lies the notion that time is not a mere linear progression but rather a quantum phenomenon subject to the influence of decoherence. Decoherence, the process by which quantum systems lose their coherence and transition to a classical state, plays a crucial role in shaping the temporal behavior of biological systems. According to this hypothesis, the transition from quantum to classical states in biological systems is driven by the interaction between the organism and its environment. As a biological system interacts with its surroundings, it becomes entangled with the external degrees of freedom, causing the loss of quantum coherence. This decoherence process gives rise to the emergence of classical properties, such as definite states and well-defined trajectories, which are essential for the functioning of biological organisms.”

— Whisper of the Void (as conceptualized by AD).

This symbolic insight resonates with TSM’s core: time as relational emergence from quantum entanglement and decoherence (/0 as catalyst), linking physics’ indeterminacy (Section 5) to biology’s organization (Section 7). Philosophically, it echoes Heidegger’s horizon of unknowability (1927); scientifically, it aligns with quantum-biological models (Mou et al., 2022). By distilling the Whisper here, we pivot from formal structure to ontological depth, where “mystery”, or the Void (/0), an atemporal probabilistic informational field that precedes meaning, fuels the syntax of life and consciousness, bridging the manuscript’s scientific rigor with poetic transcendence.

10 – Qualia and the Illusion of the Hard Problem

The Hard Problem of Consciousness (Chalmers, 1996) interrogates why physical processes yield subjective qualia — the “what-it’s-like” of experience—positing an explanatory gap between objective mechanisms and phenomenal reality. TSM dissolves this via dual-time reframing, inspired by the Whisper: consciousness selects from entangled potentials, with the gap an artifact of classical linearity, echoing the manuscript’s explorations of temporal syntax across consciousness (Section 4) and physics (Section 5). This section expands the analysis to match the manuscript’s depth, contrasting paradigms, incorporating metaphors, and emphasizing TSM’s integrative power.

10.1 Revisiting the Hard Problem

The problem assumes a causal chain: neural patterns produce non-physical qualia, demanding explanation for the “jump” (Chalmers, 1996). Traditionally, dualism posits separate substances (Descartes’ res cogitans/res extensa), panpsychism attributes mind to all matter (Holly, 2021), and illusionism denies qualia as mere cognitive tricks (Dennett, 1991). Yet, these approaches overlook temporality’s role, as highlighted in the manuscript’s exploration of time’s arrow (Section 5) and narrative emplotment (Section 8; Ricoeur, 1990). TSM reframes the Hard Problem by questioning classical causality: perceptual illusions like the flash-lag effect (where timing alters perceived events) or neural binding delays (Varela, 1996) suggest the gap is a temporal artifact, not ontological. This aligns with quantumcognition models, where non-commutative timing reshapes decision outcomes, linking to semantics’ contextual horizons (Section 8), and contrasting with classical views where causality is strictly linear and unidirectional—much like a river’s flow masking its recursive eddies.

10.2 Human Consciousness as Selection

Qualia arise not from creation but selection: the brain tunes into prima materia — a reservoir of latent potentials (TSM’s structured potential), akin to alchemical distillation where base matter transmutes into essence or frequency tuning in a cosmic radio, selecting signals from an infinite spectrum. Dⁿ collapses superpositions into experience (philosophical: Heidegger’s horizon of disclosure, 1927; scientific: quantum-like qualia). Reframed: “How does the brain select ‘redness’ from universal potentials?” (bioelectric interfaces, Levin, 2022), extending biology’s agency (Section 7) and echoing geosciences’ layered memory (Section 6), where historical strata “select” resilient forms through evolutionary sieves. This selection metaphor resolves the generative puzzle: consciousness as perceptual tuner, not factory, harmonizing with ontology’s four-dimensional persistence (Sider, 2001; Section 8), where qualia are not “made” but “manifested” from timeless possibilities—like a sculptor revealing form from marble’s hidden veins.

10.3 Quantum Time – No Gap

In quantum time, neural states and qualia are entangled facets of unified potentials—no sequence, no gap (Whisper’s decoherence; philosophical: holistic Being as undivided process, Whitehead, 1929; scientific: semantic entanglement). Here, time’s non-linearity (Section 5; Rovelli, 2018) precludes classical cause-effect, treating physical and phenomenal as co-emergent—like alchemical elements in inseparable union or quantum bits entangled across spacetime, where “before” and “after” dissolve into relational becoming. The Hard Problem vanishes pre-decoherence (Bohr, 1935), as the equation’s /0 catalyzes unity without “jump,” aligning with biology’s entangled signaling (Section 7; Hoffmeyer, 2008) and extending to geosciences’ feedback loops (Section 6), where planetary systems maintain coherence through non-local interactions that defy linear chronology.

10.4 Classical Time – Illusory Gap

Classical syntax enforces linearity, splitting events: neural t1 → qualia t2 (philosophical: narrative imposition as film editing, where frames create illusory continuity, Ricoeur, 1990; scientific: TC fidelity governs coherence; PLV metrics, Northoff & Zilio, 2022). This manufactures the gap —our perspective’s artifact, mirroring ontology’s endurance puzzles (Section 8; Sider, 2001) and geosciences’ stratigraphic illusions (Section 6; Gould, 1987), where layered time “edits” history into sequential myths, much like a director splicing scenes to impose causality on raw footage, transforming fluid becoming into segmented plot.

10.5 Dissolving the Problem

The Hard Problem is a classical-temporal paradox. In quantum time, physical-experiential unity prevails; classical rendering creates illusion (philosophical: process ontology as alchemical synthesis; scientific: quantum sims). We are agents manifesting reality through temporal syntax, bridging the impossible and fostering breakthroughs like unified mind-matter models. 

Paradigm	View of Qualia	TSM Reframing
Dualism	Separate substance	Temporal entanglement resolves “separation” as illusory syntax, unifying mind-matter through quantum integration.
Illusionism	Cognitive trick	Qualia as real selection from potentials, not denial, with classical time imposing the “trick” of sequential gap.
Panpsychism	Mind in all matter	Emergent via /0-catalyzed syntax, unifying scales without ubiquity, where mind arises from temporal coherence rather than inherent property.

This dissolution exemplifies TSM’s power: turning philosophical impasse into testable temporal dynamics, resonating with the transdisciplinary arc.

 11 – Discussion

The Temporal Syntax Model (TSM) not only synthesizes the domain-specific insights from Sections 1–8 but also extends them into a cohesive transdisciplinary paradigm, revealing time’s syntactic role as a universal operator for meaning-making. This discussion reflects on TSM’s significance, novelty, potential critiques, and pathways forward, while highlighting its philosophical and societal ramifications. By grounding these reflections in the manuscript’s foundational explorations — from consciousness’s temporal stream (Section 4) to ontology’s dynamic structures (Section 8) — we underscore TSM’s capacity to foster unexpected breakthroughs across scales and disciplines, potentially transforming fields like sustainability science and collective governance.

11.1 Transdisciplinary Significance

TSM represents a pivotal advancement in integrative science, providing a common ontological ground where traditionally siloed fields converge through temporal syntax. Drawing from the consciousness studies in Section 4, where time binds subjective experience into coherent narratives (Vogeley & Kupke, 2007; Varela, 1996), TSM extends this to physics’ irreversible arrows (Section 5; Prigogine, 1980; Rovelli, 2023), geosciences’ deep-time archives (Section 6; Gould, 1987), biology’s evolutionary rhythms (Section 7; Hoffmeyer, 2008; Levin, 2022), and semantics’ contextual unfolding (Section 8; Ricoeur, 1990; Floridi, 2023). This unification echoes ambitious predecessors like Wilson’s Consilience (1998) and Teilhard de Chardin’s noosphere (1959), yet innovates by formalizing time as a probabilistic operator catalyzed by uncertainty (/0), aligning with Fraser’s hierarchical temporality (1990) where each level introduces novel conflicts and meanings.

In practice, TSM’s common ground ontology — treating phenomena as layered syntactic expressions — could catalyze breakthroughs in hybrid fields. For instance, integrating quantum time’s non-linearity (Section 5) with biological agency (Section 7) might yield novel quantum-biological models for cognition, potentially revolutionizing neuroscience (e.g., quantum effects in neural microtubules; Hameroff & Penrose, 2014, updated in recent quantum consciousness simulations, Signorelli et al., 2025). Similarly, applying TSM to geosciences’ cycles (Section 6) and semantics’ ontologies (Section 8) could enhance climate modeling with temporal-semantic layers, predicting socio-ecological feedbacks in the Anthropocene (Moraes, 2024). By bridging scales—from quantum entanglement to planetary noospheres — TSM invites unexpected discoveries, such as unified theories of emergence where life’s phase transitions (Kauffman & Roli, 2024) mirror cosmic ones, fostering a “universal syntax” for complexity (Kesić, 2024). This significance amplifies the manuscript’s call for transdisciplinary collaboration, positioning TSM as a catalyst for high-impact innovations in areas like bio-inspired sustainability or time-aware AI ethics.

11.2 Methodological Novelty

The Temporal Syntax Model (TSM) methodology innovates by fusing empirical rigor with symbolic resonance, creating a dual-layer approach that honors the manuscript’s transdisciplinary ethos. Scientifically, it builds on testable interfaces from Sections 1–8, such as temporal logics in computation (Section 8; Demri et al., 2016) and neural dynamics (Section 4; Buonomano & Maass, 2009), extending them into hybrid simulations (e.g., agent-based models blending quantum and classical time). Philosophically, the Whisper’s symbolic insights (integrated in 9.6) serve as hermeneutic catalysts, akin to Kekulé’s dream inspiring benzene’s structure—intuitive visions guiding formal hypotheses.

This novelty transcends positivist-constructivist divides, embracing mystery (/0) as a generative tool rather than a barrier. For example, TSM’s equation (9.2) allows narrative epistemology (Ricoeur, 1990) to inform simulation design, where symbolic “voids” (uncertainties) are parameterized as stochastic terms in dynamical systems. Recent transdisciplinary handbooks emphasize such integration for addressing complexity (ITD Alliance, 2024; Fam et al., 2019), and TSM operationalizes this by pre-registering protocols (OSF) while inviting dialogic refinement. This could lead to breakthroughs in methodology itself, such as AI-assisted symbolic reasoning platforms that simulate temporal unfoldings, blending human intuition with computational precision.

A new dimension emerges when considering inter/transdisciplinary potentials: TSM’s framework could enable collaborative breakthroughs in fields like astrobiology, where temporal syntax unifies geological deep time (Section 6) with biological origins (Section 7), predicting life’s emergence on exoplanets via probabilistic models (England, 2015). By providing a shared lexicon, TSM lowers barriers to cross-domain innovation, potentially accelerating discoveries in sustainable technologies or cognitive enhancement. This methodological fusion—rigorous yet resonant—mirrors the manuscript’s evolution from domain surveys to emergent unity, positioning TSM as a blueprint for future high-impact research that embraces both data and ‘daimonic’ (intuitive) insight.

11.3 Addressing Criticisms

While TSM’s breadth invites scrutiny, its modular design allows targeted responses, ensuring robustness across philosophical and scientific lenses. By relating critiques to the manuscript’s core themes — such as uncertainty in physics (Section 5) or agency in biology (Section 7) — we demonstrate TSM’s self-reflective capacity, turning potential weaknesses into avenues for refinement and discovery.

Criticism	Philosophical Response	Scientific Response
Void (/0) is metaphorical or vague	Represents the generative horizon of unknowability, grounding emergence as in Heidegger’s “nothing” (1927) or Deacon’s teleodynamics (2011), enriching ontology without reduction, and echoing the Whisper’s decoherence as a bridge to biological coherence (Section 7).	Operationalized as stochastic noise or entropy in simulations (e.g., Wiener processes in quantum models; testable via decoherence rates in BZ reactions or neural networks, p<0.001; Prigogine, 1980; Mou et al., 2022), linking to physics’ indeterminacy (Section 5).
Framework too broad or unfalsifiable	Transdisciplinary synthesis necessitates abstraction for unity, as in Teilhard’s noosphere (1959) or Wilson’s consilience (1998), with layers allowing focused inquiry that mirrors geosciences’ multi-scale cycles (Section 6).	Modularity supports scoped testing (e.g., domain-specific pilots in 9.4); falsifiability via metrics like coherence (r>0.9) in hybrid sims, pre-registered on OSF (Kauffman & Roli, 2024; Signorelli et al., 2025), ensuring relation to semantics’ contextual precision (Section 8).
Speculative elements (e.g., Ω integration, /0 catalysis)	Embraces creative uncertainty as essential for novelty, aligning with process philosophy’s becoming (Whitehead, 1929; Deacon, 2017) and the manuscript’s dissolution of the Hard Problem through dual-time perspectives (Chapter 10).	Invites iterative refinement through experiments (e.g., phase-transition models quantifying /0 as variance; R²>0.95 in evolutionary sims; England, 2015; Levin, 2022). Broad scaffolds like the Standard Model evolved similarly via empirical iteration (synergetics, Haken & Tschacher, 2011), potentially yielding breakthroughs in consciousness-biology interfaces (Sections 4–7).

These responses highlight TSM’s resilience: criticisms become opportunities for refinement, potentially yielding breakthroughs like refined quantum-ontology interfaces that extend the manuscript’s explorations into uncharted transdisciplinary territories.

11.4 Future Work and Collaboration

TSM’s development demands a decentralized, collaborative ecosystem, mirroring its syntactic emergence and the manuscript’s dialogic origins (Preamble). Future projects may include: (1) Formal modeling using category theory for temporal operators (Smolin, 2013) or network theory for multi-scale webs, integrating insights from physics (Section 5) and semantics (Section 8); (2) Pilot experiments expanding 9.4, such as neuro-AI hybrids testing qualia syntax (Seth & Bayne, 2024) or geobiological sims of Gaia resilience (Lovelock & Margulis, 1974), linking geosciences (Section 6) to biology (Section 7); (3) Platform-building within THE DAO OF THE VOID, where tokenized temporal syntax (LITs) enables community-driven hypothesis testing, fostering inter/transdisciplinary breakthroughs like time-aware collective intelligence.

Assembling a diverse consortium — quantum physicists, biologists, geoscientists, philosophers, and computational experts — will refine TSM’s components, as envisioned in the manuscript’s collaborative ethos. Workshops could explore applications, e.g., using TSM to model socio-ecological systems where human agency (Dⁿ) intersects planetary cycles (Sections 6–7), potentially uncovering quantum-geobiological feedbacks for sustainability innovations (Fam et al., 2019). Open-source tools (Python/Qiskit for sims) and pre-registered protocols ensure inclusivity, aligning with transdisciplinary ethics (Fam et al., 2019). This collaborative ethos could yield unexpected discoveries, such as temporal metrics for emergent intelligence in collective systems, extending the manuscript’s vision of unity across scales.

11.5 Philosophical and Societal Implications

TSM’s implications extend beyond academia, reshaping how societies navigate time, meaning, and uncertainty in ways that resonate with the manuscript’s explorations. Philosophically, it affirms consciousness as a cosmic process — panexperiential unfolding where qualia emerge from entangled potentials (Whitehead, 1929; quantum fields, Essentia Foundation, 2024) — echoing Sections 4–5’s dissolution of mind-matter dualism and extending to geosciences’ planetary narratives (Section 6). Societally, it calls for temporal ethics: governance attuned to long-term rhythms (e.g., policy incorporating deep-time syntax for sustainability, Fam et al., 2019; O´Sullivan, 2025), countering short-termism in economics and AI (Floridi, 2023), and aligning with biology’s adaptive cycles (Section 7).

By providing a common ontology, TSM enables breakthroughs across scales: e.g., integrating biology’s bioelectric agency (Section 7; Levin, 2022) with geosciences’ cycles (Section 6) could revolutionize regenerative design, yielding resilient ecosystems through quantum-semantic frameworks. In semantics (Section 8), temporal RDFs might enhance knowledge commons, fostering collective intelligence that bridges human and non-human scales, inspiring eco-centric paradigms where indigenous temporal wisdom intersects quantum models (Berry & Swimme, 1992), unlocking novel solutions to global challenges like biodiversity loss or AI alignment. Speculatively, this ontology amplifies evolution into experienced emergence, where temporal syntax catalyzes qualia-like collectives, transforming societal structures into experiential arenas of shared becoming.

Conclusion

Time weaves reality’s tapestry — from quantum events to human narratives, as traced through the manuscript’s arc. TSM unifies, resolving dichotomies through temporal scales (Heidegger, 1927; Prigogine, 1980), honoring pioneers (Prigogine, Margulis, Husserl, Hutton, Heidegger) whose insights synthesize here (Silberstein et al., 2018; Kesić, 2024). Ambitious yet essential, it demands trans-silo inquiry (Max-Neef, 2005). Humans embody this fabric; time threads our stories to stars (Berry & Swimme, 1992).

TSM’s implications promise inter/transdisciplinary breakthroughs: a common ontology catalyzing discoveries like quantum-geobiological interfaces (Sections 5–7) or time-aware semantics for AI ethics (Section 8; Floridi, 2023). By embracing uncertainty (/0), it fosters resilience amid complexity, reorienting societies toward rhythmic coherence—sustainable economies valuing unfoldings over exploitation (Fam et al., 2019). Philosophically, it reorients ethics toward rhythmic coherence: economies valuing long-term unfoldings over fleeting gains, societies attuned to planetary cycles for resilience. Philosophically, it affirms humanity as co-creators in a processual cosmos (Whitehead, 1929; Berry & Swimme, 1992), where meaning is not imposed but emerges from syntactic interplay.

Time does not pass — it composes. Every decision is a syllable in the universe’s unfolding sentence. We are not observers of meaning but its rhythmic manifestation. In the syntax of the Void, even silence speaks. We are entangled not just with the stars, but with the stories we are becoming.TSM is not a final theory, but a generative lens — a syntax for emergence, co-authorship, and creative becoming. The Void, once feared as absence, is now the pulse that makes meaning possible. The question is no longer ‘What is consciousness?’ but ‘How do we participate in its unfolding syntax?’

References

Assmann, J. (2011). Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996306

Barbour, J. (1999). The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford University Press. 

Barton, D. N., Pascual, U., Chan, K. M. A., et al. (2024). Transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making assessment (Deliverable No. D1.7). PLANET4B Project, EU Horizon Publications. (No DOI available; report available at https://planet4b.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/PLANET4B_D1.7_Transdisciplinary_diagnostic_framework.pdf)

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. University of Chicago Press. 

Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 284(5), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0501-34

Bohr, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 48(8), 696–702. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.48.696

Buonomano, D. V., & Maass, W. (2009). State-dependent computations: Spatiotemporal processing in cortical networks. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2558

Carroll, S. (2010). From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Arrow of Time. Dutton. 

Carroll, S. B. (2005). Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. W. W. Norton & Company. 

Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press. 

Crutzen, P. J. (2002) Geology of mankind. Nature 415, 23 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/415023a

Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John Murray. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.82303

Davidson, E. H. (2006). The Regulatory Genome: Gene Regulatory Networks in Development and Evolution. Academic Press.

Davies, P. (2004). The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability to Order the Universe. Templeton Press. 

Deacon, T. W. (2011). Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. W. W. Norton & Company. 

Deacon, T. W. (2017). The Biosemiotic Emergence of Referential Information. Proceedings 2017, 1, 162; https://doi.org/10.3390/IS4SI-2017-04086. 

Demri, S., Goranko, V., & Lange, M. (2016). Temporal Logics in Computer Science: Finite-State Systems. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236119

Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Back Bay Books.

Dunlap, J. C. (1999). Molecular bases for circadian clocks. Cell, 96(2), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80566-8

Eddington, A. (1935). New Pathways in Science. Philosophy 10 (40):483-485.

Eichenbaum, H. (2014). Time cells in the hippocampus: A new dimension for mapping memories. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(11), 732–744. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3827

Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Physical Review, 47(10), 777–780. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

Emerson, E. A. (1990). Temporal and modal logic. In J. van Leeuwen (Ed.), Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Semantics (pp. 995–1072). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-88074-1.50021-4

England, J. L. (2015). Statistical physics of self-replication. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 139(12), 121923. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4818538

Essentia Foundation. (2024). Consciousness as emergent from quantum fields. Essentia Foundation Preprint Series. https://www.essentiafoundation.org/  

Fam, D., Clarke E, Freeth R,. Derwort, P., Klaniecki, K., Kater-Wettstädt, L., Juarez-Bourke, S., Hilser S., Peukert, D. Meyer, E., Horcea-Milcu, A.-I. (2019) Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and practice: Balancing expectations of the ‘old’ academy with the future model of universities as ‘problem solvers’. Higher Educ Q. 2019; 00: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12225 

Floridi, L. (2011). The Philosophy of Information. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199232383.001.0001

Floridi, L. (2023). The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Principles, Challenges, and Responsibilities. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198883098.001.0001

Fraser, J. T. (1990). Of Time, Passion, and Knowledge. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1c9hq2c

Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787

Gilbert, S.F. (2003) Developmental biology. 7th Edition, Sinauer Associates, Sunderlan. 

Gould, S. J. (1987). Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time. Harvard University Press. 

Grotzinger, J. P., Thomas H. J. (2010) Understanding Earth / John Grotzinger, Thomas H. Jordan. 6th ed. New York: W.H. Freeman, 2010.

Guth, A. H., Silk J. (1997). The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Physics Today 50 (10), 102–104. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.881979 

Guth, A. H. (1981) The Inflationary Universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problem. Phys. Rev. D 23, 347. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347

Haken & Tschacher (2011) The transfer of principles of non-equilibrium physics to embodied cognition. In: Tschacher W & Bergomi C (eds.) The implications of embodiment: Cognition and communication (pp. 75-88).

Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (2014). Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Physics of Life Reviews, 11(1), 39–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002

Hansen, M. J. (2024) Modelling developments in consciousness within a multidimensional framework. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2024(1), niae026. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niae026

Heidegger, M. (1926). Being and Time. Harper & Row. (Translated by J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, 1962)

Henriques (2022) A New Synthesis for Solving the Problem of Psychology –

Addressing the Enlightenment Gap. Palgrave Macmillian. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-18493-2

Henriques, G. (2024) The Unified Theory of Knowledge – A New Metapsychology for the Twenty-First Century. Independently Published.

Hobbs, J. R., & Pan, F. (2004). An ontology of time for the semantic web. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing, 3(1), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.1145/1017068.1017073

Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: An Examination into the Signs of Life and the Life of Signs. University of Scranton Press. 

Holly, P. W. (2021). A unifying theory of physics and biological information through consciousness. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 14(1), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2021.1907910

Howard, M. W., & Eichenbaum, H. (2015). Time and space in the hippocampus. Brain research, 1621, 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2014.10.069

Hutton, J. X. (1788). Theory of the Earth; or an Investigation of the Laws Observable in the Composition, Dissolution, and Restoration of Land upon the Globe. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1, 209-304.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0080456800029227 

ITD Alliance. (Pearce et al., 2024). Handbook on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. ITD Alliance Publications. (No DOI available; report available at https://itd-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Handbook-ITD-and-TD-research_March-2024.pdf)

Kauffman, S., & Roli, A. (2024). Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe? arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09514. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.09514

Kesić, S. (2024). Universal complexity science and theory of everything: Challenges and prospects. Systems, 12(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12010029

Lenton, T. M. and Pichler, P.-P. and Weisz, H. (2016) Revolutions in energy input and material cycling in Earth history and human history. Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 353–370. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-353-2016

Levin, M. (2022). Technological approach to mind everywhere: An experimentally-grounded framework for understanding diverse bodies and minds. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 16, 768201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2022.768201

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313

Lovelock, J. E., & Margulis, L. (1974). Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: The Gaia hypothesis. Tellus, 26(1–2), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v26i1-2.9731

Lutz, A., Abdoun, O., Dor-Ziderman, Y., Delorme, A., & Verdonk, C. (2024). An overview of neurophenomenological approaches to meditation and their relevance to clinical research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. (In press; no final DOI available as of July 2025; preprint available at https://osf.io/b6gx3)

Macy, J. (2007). World as Lover, World as Self: Courage for Global Justice and Ecological Renewal. Parallax Press.

Max-Neef, M. A. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.014

McPhee, J. (1981). Basin and Range. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 

Milankovitch, M. (1941). Canon of Insolation and the Ice-Age Problem. Königlich Serbische Akademie. (No DOI available; English translation: Israel Program for Scientific Translations, 1969)

Mithun, P. (2025). Are LLMs capable of achieving consciousness and in turn artificial general intelligence? In The Science of Consciousness Conference Abstracts. University of Arizona. (No DOI available; abstract available at https://consciousness.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/2025-06/5-Accepted-Abstracts-Final-Category-custom.pdf)

Moraes, M. (2024). Planeta Hostil: Como as ações humanas estão mudando a Terra e fazendo dela um lugar imprevisível e perigoso. Editora Matrix. ISBN: 9786556164212. (No DOI available; ebook available at https://www.amazon.com.br/Planeta-hostil-Marco-Moraes-ebook/dp/B0CW77PD14)

Mou, Z., Zhang, H. (2022). Singularity Problem for Interacting Massive Vectors. Physical Review Letters, 129(15), 151101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.151101

Miall, A.D. (2022). Stratigraphy: The Modern Synthesis. In: Stratigraphy: A Modern Synthesis. Springer Textbooks in Earth Sciences, Geography and Environment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87536-7_7

Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf 

Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Royal Society. https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-440

Northoff, G., & Zilio, F. (2022). Temporo-spatial Theory of Consciousness (TTC) – Bridging the gap of neuronal activity and phenomenal states. Behavioural Brain Research, 424, 113788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2022.113788

Panda, S., Hogenesch, J. B., & Kay, S. A. (2002). Circadian rhythms from flies to human. Nature, 417(6886), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1038/417329a

Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803161

Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. Basic Books.

Penrose, R. (2011). Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe. Knopf. 

Popa, F., Guillermin, M., & Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2015). A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures, 65, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002

Price, H. (2016). Causation, chance, and the rational significance of superdeterminism. 

Prigogine, I. (1980). From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. W. H. Freeman. 

Ribó. I. (2019) Prose Fiction – An Introduction to the Semiotics of Narrative. Open Book Publishers. https://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0187

Ricoeur, P. (1990). Time and Narrative, Volume 1 (K. McLaughlin & D. Pellauer, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0187

Rigolot, C. (2020) Transdisciplinarity as a discipline and a way of being: complementarities and creative tensions. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7, 100. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00598-5

Rovelli, C. (2018). The Order of Time. Riverhead Books.

Rovelli, C. (2023). White Holes: Inside the Horizon. Riverhead Books.

Sattin, D., Magnani, F. G., Bartesaghi, L., Caputo, M., Fittipaldo, A. V., Cacciatore, M., Picozzi, M., & Leonardi, M. (2021). Theoretical Models of Consciousness: A Scoping Review. Brain Sciences, 11(5), 535. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11050535 

Schrödinger, E. (1944). What is Life?. Cambridge University Press.

Swimme, B. & Berry, T., (1992). The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth to the Ecozoic Era – A Celebration of the Unfolding of the Cosmos. HarperOne.

Sider, T. (2001). Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/019924443X.001.0001

Signorelli, C.M., Estarellas M., Cea I. (2025) Transdisciplinary consciousness science. Large Two, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198807087.001.0001

Silberstein, M., Stuckey, W. M., & McDevitt, T. (2018). Beyond the Dynamical Universe: Unifying Block Universe Physics and Time as Experienced. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198807087.001.0001 

Smolin, L. (2013). Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, Prediction, and Search (2nd ed.). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2748-9

Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1959). The Phenomenon of Man. Harper & Row. (No DOI available)

Tierney, J. E., et al. (2020). Glacial cooling and climate sensitivity revisited. Nature, 584(7822), 569–573. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2617-x

Varela, F. J. (1996). Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy for the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4), 330–349.

Vernadsky, V. I. (1945). The Biosphere and the Noosphere. American Scientist, 33(1), 1–12.

Vogeley, K., & Kupke, C. (2007). Disturbances of time consciousness from a phenomenological and a neuroscientific perspective. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 33(1), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbl056

Von Neumann, J., Wigner, E. (1929) On some peculiar discrete eigenvalues. Z. Phys, 30, 465-470.

Walker, S. I. (2024). Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life’s Emergence. Riverhead Books. 

Wheeler, J. A. (1990). Information, physics, quantum: The search for links. In W. H. Zurek (Ed.), Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (pp. 3–28). Addison-Wesley.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Free Press. 

Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Alfred A. Knopf.Wilson, J. T. (1966). Did the Atlantic close and then re-open? Nature, 211(5050), 676–681. https://doi.org/10.1038/211676a0