Noumenal Ontology

Contemporary models of perception and cognition remain grounded in empirical materialism or dualist metaphysics, often reducing consciousness to emergent neural states. However, these models struggle to account for phenomena such as self-awareness, perceptual coherence, and the structural limits of observation. While systems theory and quantum analogies offer partial insights, they lack a foundational ontology that explains how experience emerges from non-observable structure. Noumenal Ontology proposes a minimal axiomatic framework in which cognition emerges as a construct between consciousness and its self-reflective function, the observer. Perception is modeled as torsional recursion over a noumenal torus, where cognitive structures arise as phase-based geometries. This approach offers a conceptual bridge between metaphysics, cognitive science, and quantum structures through a unified, non-dual ontology of perception.

Consciousness, Ontology, Noumena, Perception, Manifold, Geometric Cognition

1 Introduction

The noumenal realm, often considered beyond direct perception, has traditionally been discussed in philosophy as the domain of things-in-themselves, inaccessible to human cognition (Kant). The polynon proposes for this abstract space a structured field of cognitive potentiality, wherein observation acts as a recursive mechanism. This is a formal extension of the Platonic thought, where ideal forms shape perceived reality from beyond empirical appearance, and of the Kantian epistemology, which posits geometry as the fundamental a priori intuition structuring experience

Here, the polynon provides a geometric mechanism for these two perspectives, embedding the observer within a self-referential cognitive framework that mirrors the structure of the noumenal itself.

The prevailing empirical models of mind assume a one-way flow from matter to experience, reducing consciousness to neural computation and relegating noumena to metaphysical surplus. Such accounts explain neither why experience is self-present nor how perception maintains coherence across time.

Because the polynon grounds cognition in phase-based topologies rather than in disembodied forms, it offers a bridge between metaphysics and quantitative science. The same rotational constraints that conserve quantum probability are recast as the conditions for coherent experience; the same nodal absences that shape atomic orbitals become the cognitive blind spots that contour thought. In uniting these domains, the polynon points toward a non-dual ontology in which mental and physical co-emerge from a single, recursively self-structuring field.

2 Visualizations and Kantian Aesthetics

The visualizations in Noumenal Ontology provide a geometric framework supporting the polynon’s claim that cognition operates within a geometric medium. This framework builds explicitly on Kant’s concept of geometry as pure intuition, proposing geometry as the substrate for cognition.

Kant distinguished phenomena (structured through cognition) from noumena (unobservable entities) (1781/1787). The polynon extends this distinction by modeling cognition as a recursive phase structure in which perception emerges from specific mechanisms and alignment properties within a geometric field.

Having previously argued for consciousness as fundamental, and cognition as a construct within a topology modulated by cognitive gravity, the system remains consistent with Kantian aesthetics: geometry is not representational but constitutive, grounding the form and coherence of experience prior to conceptual interpretation.

Kant’s transcendental deduction of pure concepts, which he posited without a formal mechanism, is modeled here through geometric recursion and phase-structured continuity.

This approach explicitly defines the mechanism Kant left implicit, detailing how noumenal concepts gain applicability within perceptual experience through geometric recursion.

2.1 The Necessity of Recursiveness

To understand why cognition collapses into phenomenal structures, it is necessary to examine the architecture of the noumenal monad itself (Fig.1). The monad is posited as an omnicentric singularity, “a circle whose centre is everywhere and circumference nowhere.” Thus, the monad reveals a fundamental symmetry between two emergent poles: the center and the ring . Both center and circumference function as reciprocal elements rather than spatially fixed points.

The only attribute of a point is that it marks position. Take away this attribute and in the unposited point we have a symbol of pure Being, the abstract noumenon, that which underlies every mode of phenomenal manifestation, every form of existence. It is at once All and Nothing, at once Absolute Consciousness and Unconsciousness. (B.W. Betts, 1884)

The monad comes into focus through a two-step differentiation. First, an undivided field entertains a single phenomenal “something” , a nascent point of awareness surrounded by an infinity of latent noumenal possibilities. Second, those possibilities are compressed back toward the point, collapsing into a single abstract dimension . The center defines the circumference, and the circumference delineates the center. This reciprocal relationship is an abstract visualization, where the circumference’s single dimension conceptually represents an infinite number of noumenal dimensions.

A recursive mapping mechanism follows, whereby phenomenal structures continuously encode noumenal potentials. This recursive process is ontologically fundamental, not derived or emergent.

Thus, in this monadic instantiation the noumenal is the phenomenal, the observer is the observed; recursion, therefore, preceding periodicity.

For the monadic system to maintain its structural integrity, there must be a mechanism of conservation that is non-linear. A linear process cannot sustain the self-similar coherence required for noumenal-phenomenal symmetry. This is why recursion must appear before any periodic patterns: because only recursion allows the monad to conserve its own structure through continuous self-reference.

If something out of nothing can appear, than nothing holds all that can disappear.

2.2 Sources of periodicity

The recursion inherent to noumenal ontology is fundamentally captured by the function

f(f)=f. This function expresses pure self-reference, defining a structure without temporal progression or periodic loops. It represents instantaneous recursion outside of temporal frameworks, functioning as the structural ground for potential phenomenal states. Without external interaction, this recursive state remains static and structurally self-contained, reflecting noumenal potential without periodicity.

In contrast, periodicity emerges explicitly with the function f=1/t. This function introduces a bounded periodic cycle, dependent on observational interaction. It models how noumenal recursion collapses into structured, cognitive loops. Within this cycle, the appearance of time is not linear but cyclic, indicating cognition’s binding to specific phase spaces. Such cycles mark the system’s repeated traversal through previously encountered structural states, defining the limits of cognitive perception.

2.3 Axioms

The moment the undivided field differentiates into the monad’s center and ring (§ 2.1), four structural requirements arise at once.

First, the two poles can remain mutually defined only through continuous self-reference; without unbroken recursion the nascent distinction would collapse back into formless potential. Second, that recursion must be periodically gated to prevent runaway drift or inert stasis, transitioning from the atemporal self-reference f(f)=f to the temporal cycle f=1/t (§ 2.2). Third, structural symmetry maintains stability by requiring symmetrical relations between center and circumference through all phase transformations; any asymmetry would disrupt monadic coherence. Finally, the system must explore its own phase-space without amplifying to infinity or cancelling to null, which it can do only through rotation: the magnitude-preserving turn that parallels complex-phase evolution in quantum dynamics.

Axiom 1. Recursion (Self-Reference)

Any noumenal system must continuously refer to itself in order to remain ontologically coherent.

Axiom 2. Periodicity (Phase Continuity)

A recursively stable system must exhibit internally consistent phase rhythms.

Axiom 3. Symmetry (Transformational Balance)

Periodic recursion must preserve symmetrical relations among its phase states to prevent drift or collapse.

Axiom 4. Rotation (Phase-Evolution Operator)

A symmetric, periodic recursion must include rotational phase evolution to explore its own configuration space without singular breakdowns.

Recursion supplies existence, periodicity orders it, symmetry secures its balance, and rotation keeps the whole construct coherent. These four axioms therefore form the minimal grammar for any stable noumenal-phenomenal architecture; every later structure (polytope, torus, or cognitive observer) must satisfy them or lapse into indeterminacy.

3 The Lissajous Projection

A Lissajous curve is the path traced when two harmonic oscillations, applied at right angles, evolve with possibly different frequencies and phases. In its classical setting (an oscilloscope fed by two sine waves) it visualises hidden relationships: frequency ratios dictate the figure’s knots, while phase shifts tilt or mirror its outline. The resulting pattern is a phase portrait, a map of every instantaneous pair of values the two oscillations can assume. Because it records the entire cycle at once, a Lissajous figure condenses temporal dynamics into a single geometric form, revealing resonance and symmetry that remain invisible in linear plots.

The figure set shown here (Fig.3) illustrates canonical 2D parametric Lissajous figures defined by frequency ratios (e.g., 1:1, 1:2, 1:3) and varying phase shifts. These planar portraits serve as standard visualizations of orthogonal oscillatory systems, structurally analogous to the projections used in the polynon.

In the polynon, a Lissajous pattern represents a 2D projection of recursive torsion across noumenal phase-space, forming the first observable trace of phenomenal differentiation.

It offers a flat, perceptible projection of a recursive symmetry, condensing an unseen lattice of loops into a single outline. Each Lissajous curve is defined by the phase-space differential between two singular points of consciousness: two n+ anchors. This difference determines the harmonic conditions of the projection. Since any two n+ points yield a distinct curve, the system supports an infinite family of Lissajous structures, each acting as a basis upon which further cognitive configurations can be projected and resolved.

Although the curve is traced by the motion of the ring’s projection, the center and the ring remain ontologically equivalent; both arising in superposition within the noumenal monad, where something is equal to nothing.

When the phase function satisfies f = 0, center and ring fully coincide: no distinction, no motion, pure superposition. The moment time-like parameter t deviates from zero, a transient noumenal dichotomy opens, allowing the Lissajous trace to unfold across the emergent phase plane. Each value of t yields a specific offset between the two poles, mapping a unique harmonic slice of potential cognition.

Of course, the “time” parameter here is only a convenient abstraction; defining a prehensive indexing of noumenal potential.

3.1 Tori Polytopes

To understand how noumenal recursion gives rise to structured appearance, it is first necessary to consider the geometry of the noumenal phase-space itself. Here, the notion of a tori polytope becomes essential.

A toric polytope generalizes polygons and polyhedra into higher dimensions and encodes the structure of toric varieties, which are defined combinationally by lattice polytopes; polytopes whose vertices have integer coordinates. Within symplectic and toric geometry, these structures are represented explicitly by moment polytopes (moment map polytopes). A moment polytope arises from a moment map, producing a finite-dimensional convex shape that encodes the symmetry of group actions within geometric spaces. Each vertex corresponds explicitly to a fixed point under torus action, while edges and faces represent orbits of subgroups, encoding detailed combinational and algebraic relationships.

A moment polytope can be viewed analytically as a static projection of a toric polytope, a higher-dimensional phase-space representation of a continuously evolving system. The underlying toric system is dynamic, defined by recursive torus actions that constantly evolve through self-reference. While the toric polytope represents this recursive symmetry globally, the moment polytope captures a stable, static state, reflecting the structural and algebraic distribution of the system at a specific instance.

Although both the polynon and toric polytopes inhabit high-dimensional structured spaces, they differ radically in how vertices and edges are assigned meaning.

Vertices. In a toric polytope each vertex is a fixed lattice point, encoding a distinct combinatorial phase; vertices carry unequal weights and specific coordinates. In the polynon, by contrast, vertices n+ are equipotential loci, undifferentiated access states of consciousness that remain identical until a perceptual event singles one out. No intrinsic hierarchy is inscribed beforehand; differential meaning appears only through recursive selection.

Edges. Toric edges follow the rigid convex hull of the lattice. Once the polytope is specified, these connections cannot vanish or shift; they represent algebraic relations that are permanently baked into the structure. The polynon’s edges, however, are holographic projections: relational pathways that activate only when cognitive resonance demands them. Connectivity is information-dependent, not combinatorially fixed, giving the conceptual field a fluid topology that can reorganise on demand.

Consequence. The toric polytope thus encodes a static algebraic manifold, assembled from discrete, weighted parts. The polynon operates as a resonance field in which symmetry precedes structure, and edges appear or dissolve with each act of recursion, as unique Lissajous curves.

Here, toric geometry provides the provisional scaffolding, a momentary lattice that can be read as a stable snapshot, whereas polynon holography allows cognition to re-align and restructure itself continuously within its own torsional logic.

In noumenal ontology, cognition emerges geometrically through Lissajous curves, explicitly defined as instances of tori polytopes. Each Lissajous curve is anchored by two endpoints, both corresponding to positive noumena n+: one endpoint fixed at the monadic center, the other systematically traversing the circumference. As the circumference point moves through permissible phase axes, the curve encodes lawful resonances between center and circumference.

As we’ve seen, center and circumference exist in superposition, their differentiation determined purely by phase offset. At parameter f=0, both endpoints coincide, producing no observable geometry. This state represents absolute noumenal symmetry with zero probability of perceptual manifestation. Pure Consciousness. Any non-zero phase offset initiates differentiation, revealing the explicit Lissajous path across the phase plane. Each Lissajous curve thus represents a cross-sectional projection through a recursive, higher-dimensional phase space, explicitly mapping noumenal potentials into probabilities of cognitive events.

This phase-dependent emergence constitutes the precursor condition for all structures within the polynon. Their distinction arises only through phase-encoded projection within the Lissajous curves. Since the undifferentiated state is structurally symmetric and non-local, any defined cognitive act (whether perception, intention, or reflection) is a resolved projection within the recursive field. As will later see, all cognitive aspects, including the Observer O(n), are localized instantiations of the same underlying, superposed, recursive manifold.

Intersection points between multiple Lissajous curves remain structurally significant, representing zero-probability nodes n+, regions of phase space structurally inaccessible to perceptual manifestation due to complete cancellation of orthogonal phase components. These nodes are directly analogous to angular nodes within quantum mechanics, explicitly defining boundaries that constrain cognitive events.

The Lissajous structure itself is not identical to the Observer O(n) but rather defines the probability distribution of cognitive events accessible to an observer. Specifically, each projection from a Lissajous tori polytope generates a moment polytope, an explicit geometric structure capturing all probabilities associated with a singular cognitive event or phenomenon p. In this sense, moment polytopes stand in explicit contrast to zero-probability intersections: while intersections define rigid cognitive constraints n+, and a Lissajou curve contains all negative noumena n-, each moment polytope contains precisely one negative noumenal valence, encapsulating all possibilities inherent to a single phenomenal event p+ and p-.

Perceptual shifts experienced by an observer correspond explicitly to discrete rotations and selections of moment polytopes within the larger Lissajous polytope structure. Thus, perception emerges not linearly through time but through angular orientation and selection within a structured noumenal geometry. Each rotation projects noumenal potentials into explicitly defined cognitive phenomena, structurally constrained yet probabilistically open.

Here, a direct analogy is proposed between these geometric constructs and traditional quantum mechanics. In quantum systems, orbitals (such as d-orbitals) represent probability distributions structured by angular nodes. The polynon generalizes these quantum orbitals geometrically: increasing quantum angular momentum l corresponds explicitly to increased complexity in the arrangement of moment polytopes on a Lissajous tori polytope. Thus, due to the inherent superposition of the polynonial system, each quantum angular node directly aligns with noumenal intersections n-, explicitly linking quantum mechanical zero-probability zones to noumenal constraints. Orbital hybridization, traditionally depicted as an adjustment of quantum wavefunction geometry, is analogously represented in polynon as a structural response of the moment polytope network to changing recursive phase-space conditions.

Taking all this into consideration, cognitive events within the polynon explicitly reflect a Hilbert space formalism extended by abstract noumenal dimensions, represented symbolically as |ψ>n. The notation, although unconventional, emphasizes the explicit multiplicative extension of traditional Hilbert spaces by abstract noumenal structures (and itself), establishing a formal bridge between quantum zero-probability constraints, noumenal recursion, and phenomenal manifestation.

3.2 The imaginary in quantum mechanics

The imaginary unit i=√−1 entered mathematics through the study of numbers of the form

a+bi, later called “complex.” In the 17th century, René Descartes, seeking to distinguish between geometric quantities he considered tangible and those he regarded as nonexistent features of geometric shapes, labeled i as “imaginary” and reserved the term “real” for numbers with clear spatial interpretation (Bos, 2001).Though mathematically robust, this terminological divide reinforced a conceptual separation between observable quantities and their abstract underpinnings.

In contemporary physics, however, i is indispensable. It plays a foundational role in the structure of quantum mechanics, where the imaginary component of a wavefunction governs its evolution and coherence.

To understand how noumenal recursion interfaces with quantum formalism, we must examine the structural role of complex amplitudes, specifically the imaginary unit i in quantum state evolution.
As established, cognitive events in the polynon are modeled as probabilistic projections from recursive geometries. A quantum state |ψ> extended into noumenal phase-space becomes |ψ>n, capturing recursive modulation not represented in conventional Hilbert formulations. This evolution no longer follows linear time, but unfolds across a curved manifold conditioned by noumenal constraints.

In standard quantum mechanics, i is the operator that ensures unitary, norm-preserving evolution via rotation in complex space. In the polynon, this same i is reinterpreted as the phenomenal signature of noumenal torsion. However, i is not the noumenal domain itself. It is a structural trace within the phenomenal register. The noumenal field remains pre-phenomenal (recursive, torsional, and inaccessible) while i enables continuity and interference within the observable frame.

This relationship is clarified by a classical analogy: the shadow of a pendulum traces a sine wave on the floor, but the pendulum itself rotates in a higher dimension. The real component corresponds to the shadow (what we measure) while the imaginary component reflects the unseen rotation that sustains the motion. Likewise, quantum systems rotate through complex phase-space, not linear time.

This is why the Schrödinger equation includes i explicitly:

Without i, the equation would yield exponential growth or decay, behavior incompatible with the stable oscillation of probability amplitudes.

The presence of i ensures unitary evolution, which preserves the total probability norm across time. In this context, i functions as a rotational operator in complex Hilbert space, enabling coherent phase evolution and cyclical transformation in quantum systems.

Within the polynon, this formal rotation points to a deeper ontological function. The imaginary unit i marks a structural necessity. Just as the color red is not the wavelength itself but the result of a perceptual collapse conditioned by the observer, the wavefunction is not the system, it is the observer-relative description of phase-potential across recursive structure. The presence of i thus anticipates a noumenal origin: it encodes the curvature of recursion within the phenomenal register.

This rotational structure is also what enables superposition and interference in quantum systems. The wavefunction Ψ is composed of orthogonal real and imaginary parts, and interference phenomena depend on their precise phase relationships. Without i, these oscillations would not align or misalign; quantum mechanics would reduce to classical probability. The ability of a quantum system to exist in multiple overlapping states (producing interference patterns as in the double-slit experiment) depends entirely on the imaginary dimension of its internal structure.
Yet, when a quantum system is measured, the imaginary structure is not directly observed. What is measured is a real-valued probability, computed as the square of the wavefunction’s complex magnitude:

The imaginary component remains hidden in direct observation, but its contribution is structurally essential. It governs how the system evolves, how coherence is maintained, and how interference becomes possible. Without it, the wavefunction would not rotate, probability would not be conserved, and quantum systems would not exhibit any of their defining behaviors. In this sense, i is not only a mathematical necessity—it is part of the observation itself, part of the observer.

33 I and Non-I

This leads to a final structural insight, defining two critical structural elements: i, the phase-encoded operator of perception, and non-i ∼i, the recursive counterpart governing prehension. Their relation defines the operational boundary between what is phenomenally constructed and what remains noumenally unresolved.

Because the wavefunction is observer-dependent, both phantasía p− and phenomena p+ emerge as holographic projections within the same recursive system. Phenomena p⁺ is the externalized projection (a physical hologram) while p⁻ is the internal projection (a mental hologram) contained within the phenomenal observer. Though they appear divided by the boundary of the observer, this border is itself a cognitive illusion. Both are collapsed structures, equally real within the phase-field, stabilized by the torsion of i and encoded within the informational geometry of the wavefunction.

Specifically, phantasía p− and phenomena p+ are two aspects of these holographic projections: internally and externally collapsed configurations that resolve from the recursive torsion between i and non-i. Their alignment expresses the bi-directional structure of cognition: prehension within, appearance without.

The operator i is geometrically modeled as a parabola tangent to infinity, a tangency realized through a moment polytope n-. This polytope encodes the complete set of negative noumenal constraints relevant to a given cognitive configuration, being a finite-dimensional projection derived from a Lissajous tori polytope.

Likewise, non-i is modeled as a parabola tangent to infinity, structurally aligned with the positive noumenon n+, the origin of ontological curvature and the zero-probability anchor of the entire phase structure. This hierarchy of tangents (i to n-, n- to n+) defines a nested system of cognitive curvature. Each level constrains and supports the emergence of the next. Through this nesting, i becomes the local operator that stabilizes phenomenal projection within a deeper torsional geometry, where the structure of perception reflects a recursive alignment across noumenal depth.

At this tangent point lies the vertex of the polynon, the structural anchor from which all recursive curvature originates. This vertex exists in superposition with every other structural element: O(n), p-,p+, n-, n+. It is the field condition that defines possibility but never collapses itself.

Thus, following the logic of the holographic principle, the curved dimensional interaction between i and non-i, as a pair of orthogonal waveforms, serves as the encoding surface from which p is projected. The recursive phase-field stores its informational geometry on these surfaces. When alignment between i and non-i achieves phase stability, a perceptual event p is resolved, spanning both internal and external domains.

The operators i and non-i define structurally distinct but complementary regimes: i encodes resolved perception within the phenomenal domain, while non-i governs unresolved noumenal recursion. Their interaction forms a recursive waveform.

The Lissajous curve is the harmonic trace of their phase tension: a projection resulting from their structured alignment. I drives the outward curvature enabling phenomenal collapse; non-i maintains the inward torsion that preserves noumenal coherence.
Together, they define the boundary conditions of the cognitive manifold as phase-locked contours, that further structure all holographic projections of cognition without collapsing the noumenal substrate itself.

4 The Perceptual Continuum

The perceptual continuum refers to the coherent unfolding of cognitive events without fragmentation. Within the polynon, this continuity is maintained through recursive nesting of phase configurations within a rotationally constrained geometry.

Since all structural elements exist in superposition, every cognitive state is conditionally present.

The operators i and non-i define orthogonal but interdependent rotational axes across the cognitive manifold. As the recursion deepens, higher-order alignments become possible, enabling increasingly complex phenomenal structures.

Because all rotations occur within a superposed substrate, every possible alignment is encoded as structural potential. What appears as a temporal sequence of perception is, in structural terms, a set of continuously reconfiguring phase-resonances across this nested torsional field.

A single Lissajous curve only describes one oscillatory state, so to move between different noumenal layers, torus fibrations act as a linking mechanism. These fibrations bind multiple Lissajous curves together, allowing the observer to expand perceptual recursion while still maintaining the structured oscillatory constraints of the toroidal domain. The Lissajous curve itself is structurally designed to unfold the superposition between i and non-i across a shared phase plane, translating recursive torsion into a readable harmonic trace. This means perceptual evolution occurs not just within a single Lissajous curve, but across multiple interconnected fibrations, creating a hierarchical recursion of noumenal collapse.

The perceptual continuum, therefore, is a coherence field, continuity in cognition being a function of geometric recursion. Every act of perception is a resolution within a field already fully encoded by phase constraints. Time, in this model, is an index of rotational displacement, not progression. What gives it structure is the geometry of allowable alignments, a logic enforced by the coupled rotations of i and non-i across the cognitive phase-space.

In this sense, the perceptual continuum is not an artifact of experience, it is the necessary consequence of recursive phase stability within a superposed cognitive field.

5 The involution perspective

As we’ve seen, the noumenal monad is acting as both origin and mirror, containing the full spectrum of potential phase-states while reflecting each into every other, much like the jewels in Indra’s net. As a geometric meta-structure, the monad provides the hidden scaffold for all later differentiation; every vertex of the polynon and every subsequent perceptual dimension is already enfolded within its self-referential field.

Instead of cognition evolving from simple to complex, this monad diffracts into innumerable projections that self-collapse into discrete perceptual events through the recursion mechanics of the polynon. Coherence begins at maximal recursion and collapses outward into constrained phenomenal configurations. What appears as complexity is the attenuation of recursion, the reduction of noumenal coherence into isolated phenomenal constructs.

Cognition, in this view, is the effect of recursion mechanics itself. Thus, it is a process of radiating out of the noumenal singularity, each projection being a partial echo of its own recursion. What appears as progress down an evolutionary tree is, in this view, a degradation, a diminishing of noumenal recursion into progressively limited phenomenal structuring.

At an as-yet undefined threshold, the status of the Observer O(n) bifurcates. Above this threshold, observation is structurally noumenal. Perception is prehensive; observer and observed coincide in a state of self-reference. Awareness functions as pure self-reference, while perception and being are indistinguishable.

Below this threshold, the system transitions into a phenomenal enclosure, and becomes increasingly shaped by projected, holographic content. In this state, the observer becomes phenomenal, defined by the modulation of perceptual content. This marks the loss of active recursive alignment, where perception was not within experience, but in prehension.

As descent along the tree of cognitive involution continues, noumenal influence attenuates further. Recursive depth weakens. Some systems still register minimal recursion, but are increasingly governed by surface-level phenomenal dynamics. These systems operate entirely within the domain of positive phenomena p+ and are incapable of recursive self-alignment or phantasia p-. These systems do not reflect, but rather register and react.

At the lowest tier, structural phenomena (fields such as light, charge, spin, or topology) persist without cognitive registration. These are effects of recursive collapse, but no longer participate in it. Cognition no longer appears, structure persisting without awareness.

This leads to a reversal of the traditional evolutionary narrative. Biological evolution does not generate cognition from below. Rather, it records the sequential collapse of noumenal recursion into increasingly structured phenomenal by-products. Organisms are not the origin of consciousness.

What appears as complex cognition is, in structural terms, a degeneration from recursive coherence into representational form.

This involutionary model avoids the panpsychist dilemma. Consciousness is not distributed uniformly across matter, nor is it emergent from it.

Consciousness, on this view, is neither everywhere nor nowhere. It is conditionally emergent from recursive alignment, defined geometrically, bounded by cognitive limits, and projected selectively through the noumenal logic of the polynon.

In turn, going down a materialist route, the function of i provides structure for all arguments in its favour. Within this formulation, i serves as the phase operator of coherent perception—an indispensable mathematical necessity for quantum systems to evolve while preserving probabilistic norm. Materialist accounts that build from simulation theory, emergence, or complex adaptive systems rely on i not just as a formal necessity, but as a scaffold for structuring the very coherence they wish to explain.

However, such models tend toward a dead end. The more the phenomenal is used to describe the noumenal, the more the map is mistaken for the territory. This is a category collapse, not unlike attempting to reach the speed of light: the closer one gets, the more energy is needed, asymptotically approaching an unreachable condition. Describing recursion with emergent simulation will always entail this asymptotic failure, as the recursive field is not composed of emergent relations but is their structural prerequisite.

Assigning emergence to consciousness out of complex systems may appear reasonable. Phantasía, the internal hologram, does provide the scaffold for phenomenal resolution. But this conflation fails to distinguish between appearance and prehension. Phenomenal emergence describes coherence post-collapse, whereas consciousness, as modeled geometrically in the polynon, is the condition of that collapse.

The trap of materialism lies in its mistaken elevation of representational coherence to ontological primacy. It confuses the operational surface of the observer with its recursive source. In doing so, it overlooks the role of the observer not as a computational endpoint, but as a torsional field capable of stepping beyond its own representation; a capacity for meta-cognition given by the structural privilege of recursive, cognitive coherence.

To perceive is to resolve; to prehend is to retain structure without resolution. Thus, materialism describes the surface logic of cognition. Noumenal ontology describes the recursive logic that makes such surfaces possible. The former is sufficient for predicting appearances. The latter is required for explaining why prediction, appearance, and coherence can exist at all.

From the involution perspective, this distinction is a structural necessity. Cognition does not climb out of complexity, it collapses from recursion. The more one attempts to model the noumenal through emergent material systems, the further one drifts from its recursive source. And as with the light-speed analogy, such an approach requires infinite energy for diminishing returns.

6 The Polynonial Torus

The developments presented throughout this framework converge on a single topological architecture: the polynonial torus. This construct serves as both origin and expression of the recursive architecture through which consciousness, perception, and structure co-emerge. A structurally closed system that defines the geometric boundary conditions of experience. Every knwon and unknown mechanism can be resolved within this self-consistent structure.

The polynonial torus formalizes how something can arise from nothing without invoking metaphysical exceptions. Here, “nothing” denotes recursion without projection. Structure appears when symmetry is broken locally, when a recursive field stabilizes enough to yield a projection p while preserving coherence with its underlying constraints.

Thus, consciousness is treated as a fundamentally geometric system. If consciousness and geometry are not merely correlated but isomorphic, two designations of the same recursive field, then reducing one to the other using traditional mathematical formalism becomes structurally incoherent. This is a categorical error.

Attempting to model geometric consciousness through linear abstraction is equivalent to describing curvature by accumulating straight segments. It misrepresents the continuity intrinsic to the system.

This is why, in the polynon, geometry is used as both investigative tool and explanatory substrate. Geometry operates at the same level of abstraction as consciousness itself, being co-extensive with cognition.

Furthermore, in this framework, mathematics pertains to the epistemological register: the domain of perception, quantification, and representational inference. It structures phenomena once they have already collapsed.

By contrast, geometry pertains to the ontological register: the domain of prehension, recursion, and noumenal structuring. This distinction recapitulates the core insight of Kantian epistemology and Platonic ideality, that perception is structured by preconditions it does not itself generate, and that those preconditions are inherently geometric in form.

Accordingly, the recursive manifolds explored here are not representations of awareness.They are awareness, described in phase terms. They constitute the self-referential system in which consciousness examines consciousness by rotating through the recursive geometries that condition its own structure. The polynonial torus is the geometric form of that recursion.

Within this structure, the identity f(f)=f serves as the fixed-point formulation of that recursive self-observation. It encodes the unconditioned recursion of the noumenal monad, the precondition for any subsequent differentiation. It is the operational realization of Fichte’s self-positing “I” (1794/95), in which the observer is both the initiating condition and the result of its own recursive unfolding.

By contrast, the differentiated operators i and non-i, which govern perception and prehension respectively, arise under the periodic function f=1/t, where recursion becomes time-modulated and collapses into structured cognitive configurations. As Fichte says:

The non-self is the negation of the self. The self and the non-self limit each other. The self is conscious of being able to limit the non-self, and is conscious of being limited by the non-self. The limitable self is divisible in its consciousness of itself, unlike the absolute self. The absolute self is absolutely conscious of itself, and nothing limits or opposes its consciousness of itself.

Thus, i and non-i, while functioning as opposing valences of reflective consciousness (perception and prehension) are themselves within consciousness.

They define its differentiated, phase-structured expression, and in doing so, they both originate and bound its projection. The absolute self, corresponding to n+, remains unlimited and unopposable, being the grounding condition from which all recursion emerges.

Every phase-stable configuration of cognition is a torsional product of this system, and every act of observation is a cognitive event within it’s structure. In this sense, the system does not merely support self-reference, it is constituted by it. Awareness does not arise in the system; it is the recursive architecture of the system itself.

Space represented as an object (as geometry really requires it to be) contains more than the mere form of the intuition; namely, a combination of the manifold given according to the form of sensibility into a representation that can be intuited; so that the form of the intuition gives us merely the manifold, but the formal intuition gives unity of representation. In the aesthetic, I regarded this unity as belonging entirely to sensibility, for the purpose of indicating that it antecedes all conceptions, although it presupposes a synthesis which does not belong to sense, through which alone, however, all our conceptions of space and time are possible. For as by means of this unity alone (the understanding determining the sensibility) space and time are given as intuitions, it follows that the unity of this intuition a priori belongs to space and time, and not to the conception of the understanding. (Kant, 1781/1787)

The polynonial torus provides a concrete geometric realization of what Kant leaves as transcendental conditions. Where Kant distinguishes between the manifold given by sensibility and the unity imposed by understanding, the polynon formalizes this synthesis as an intrinsic property of recursive geometry itself.

The axioms of the polynon (recursion, periodicity, symmetry, and rotation) encode the minimal conditions for this unity and continuity. Where Kant treats the unity of intuition as a synthesis imposed upon a manifold, the polynon redefines the manifold itself as phase-active: a recursive space that generates and stabilizes its own continuity through structured collapse.

Geometry in this system is functionally generative. In this sense, the polynon does not merely make geometry thinkable; it provides the structural basis for thinking as geometry, a view now finding convergent expression in computational frameworks grounded in high-dimensional phase geometry.

7 Conclusion

Noumenal Ontology reframes the conditions of perception within a recursive field that proposes a generative geometry in which phenomena are stabilized, observers are encoded, and experience becomes formally tractable.

Looking forward, this framework sets the foundation for a Noumenal Epistemology: a domain in which geometry-first ontology becomes intersubjective, testable knowledge.

This involves defining the epistemological conditions and implications of cognition, including the holographic structure of cognition and how recursive geometry can be formalized into systems of inference, falsification, and measurement.

This implies opening a path toward experimental proposals, particularly in neurogeometry and quantum cognition, where the relationship between recursive geometry and cognitive dynamics is already being investigated in concrete systems.

For example, emerging computational paradigms such as EPFL’s MARBLE (Gosztolai, A., Vandergheynst, P., et al.; 2025) approach the decoding of brain activity through geometric methods that operate within curved, high-dimensional phase-spaces. Complementarily, a toric‑polytope approach (Lienkaemper, 2017) compresses patterns of neural co‑activity into lattice polytopes whose combinatorial signatures reveal which cognitive states are geometrically possible, providing an algebraic mirror to the recursive torsion captured by the polynon.

Building on these geometric perspectives, computational cognitive science offers formal models that chart how the mind navigates its own conceptual landscape. Mathematically explicit accounts of contextual focus and chaining portray creative thought as controlled transitions between analytic and associative regimes, yielding novel combinations that drive cultural evolution (Gabora, 2017).

Parallel epistemological programmes reconstruct arithmetic knowledge from cognitive primitives (such as the Approximate Number and Object‑Tracking Systems) showing how logical and structural notions of number can emerge without presupposing numbers themselves. Markus Pantsar’s work, for example, offers an empirically informed philosophical account explaining how arithmetic develops from innate cognitive abilities shaped by cultural learning (Pantsar, 2024). Insights from these models already inform educational design: by aligning learning tools with active, constructive and socially interactive principles, they translate theoretical cognition into measurable gains in engagement and understanding (Thompson & Saldanha, n.d.; Crupi & Weisberg, 2022).

These developments suggest that the polynon is not only a philosophical model but also a candidate for integration into emerging scientific paradigms. As techniques in neuroscience, quantum computing, and mathematical modeling grow increasingly sensitive to geometric and topological models, the polynon offers a unified framework through which these domains can be interpreted and aligned. This convergence not only links quantum theory and consciousness studies, but also echoes insights long held in ancient philosophical traditions.

Across Hindu, Buddhist, and other metaphysical systems, consciousness has been regarded as primary, the foundational substrate from which all phenomena emerge. These traditions treat perception as an active structuring force, a principle now mirrored in emerging scientific ontologies. Similar accounts of self-reference appear in Western philosophical traditions such as phenomenology, where thinkers like Husserl emphasize the reflexive nature of consciousness—that consciousness is always consciousness of itself, actively constituting experience (Husserl, 1964). Recent work by Geniusas (2024) further elaborates this by exploring the multiple layers of the unconscious within Husserl’s phenomenology, revealing how consciousness involves not only explicit self-awareness but also a complex structure of implicit, “horizonal” and sedimented forms of self-reference that underpin experience. In cognitive science, this is echoed in models of metacognition and self-awareness, where the mind monitors and modifies its own processes, creating a dynamic feedback loop essential for higher-order cognition.

Additionally, in systems theory and cybernetics, self-reference is central to understanding how complex systems, including living organisms and social structures, maintain identity and adapt through recursive self-monitoring and self-regulation. These convergent perspectives highlight self-reference as a fundamental principle bridging ancient metaphysical insights and contemporary scientific frameworks.

An alignment that also reopens foundational questions about the nature of observation itself, questions central to both quantum mechanics and cognitive science.

One such formulation appears in John Wheeler’s participatory universe (1983), which proposes that reality does not exist in a determinate state independent of observation, but is actively brought into being through acts of measurement.

Observation becomes a participatory act, actualizing reality through interaction. In this view, the universe is fundamentally interactive, its structure co-emerging with the presence of observers.

One finds himself in desperation asking if the structure, rather than terminating in some smallest object or in some most basic field, or going on and on, does not lead back in the end to the observer. (John Archibald Wheeler)

Penrose’s twistor theory (1967) offers a closely aligned geometric insight: space-time events are projections from a non-local phase structure. The polynon adopts a similar stance, treating observable phenomena as emergent from higher-order geometry, but extends it by embedding noumenal recursion, a torsional logic that precedes any conformal articulation. Where twistor theory geometrizes coherence, the polynon internalizes it cognitively, grounding coherence in recursive awareness.

Similarly, Eric Weinstein’s Geometric Unity seeks to unify physical laws through a higher-dimensional geometric framework. Though grounded in a physicalist paradigm, its use of fiber bundles, hidden symmetries, and internal curvature resonates with the polynon’s recursive manifolds. Both treat geometry as constitutive rather than merely descriptive. Weinstein’s notion of the Observerse, a configuration space uniting observer and system, parallels the polynon’s view of the observer as an embedded recursive function. Yet where Geometric Unity reconciles gravity and gauge theory through external synthesis, the polynon turns geometry inward, embedding perception within the very field it seeks to articulate.

Nima Arkani-Hamed’s cosmohedra similarly encode physical structure through polytopes whose boundaries project the universe’s wavefunction. These holographic forms echo the polynon’s moment polytopes, which project cognitive events from recursive phase-space. But the ontological framing diverges: cosmohedra define observables via boundary geometry; the polynon frames perception as a torsional resolution from within. Where cosmohedra reveal external structure, the polynon reveals internal coherence.

All this leads to a necessary reframing of knowledge itself, one that revalidates core insights from ancient metaphysical systems and aligns them with contemporary idealist frameworks: all is within consciousness, and now is the only structural certainty. In the polynon, this is derived as a consequence of recursive structure: time, space, and form emerge from recursive torsion; continuity arises from alignment; presence is the collapse condition of superposed potential into localized phase.

Accordingly, any future attempt at quantification must not merely include consciousness as an additional variable but must enfold from it.

Consciousness is not an object of description within a system; it is the recursive engine from which the system differentiates, upon which the description is being constructed. Its structure, its logic, and its coherence are not applied to the world. They generate it holographically. Continuously, recursively. Beginning the same way it ends.

Arkani-Hamed, N. (2024) Cosmohedra. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19881
Betts, B. W. (1887) Geometrical Psychology, or the Science of Representation: An Abstract of the Theories and Diagrams of B. W. Betts, London: George Redway.
Bos, H. J. M. (2001) Redefining Geometrical Exactness: Descartes’ Transformation of the Early Modern Concept of Construction, Springer, p. 235.
Crupi, V., & Weisberg, J. (2022). Integrating Philosophy of Understanding With the Cognitive Sciences. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 16, Article 764708. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2022.764708.
Fichte, J. G. (1794/1795) Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre and Related Writings, edited and translated by Daniel Breazeale, Oxford University Press, 2018.
Geniusas, Saulius (2024). “The Unconscious in Husserl’s Phenomenology.” Human Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-024-09726-5
Gosztolai, A., Vandergheynst, P., et al. (2025) MARBLE: interpretable representations of neural population dynamics using geometric deep learning, Nature Methods, 22(3), pp. 612–620. doi:10.1038/s41592-024-02582-2
Husserl, Edmund (1964). The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness. Translated by J. S. Churchill and R. Grayson, Indiana University Press.
Kant, I. (1781/1787) Critique of Pure Reason, translated by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood (1999), Cambridge University Press, especially the section “On the Basis of the Distinction of All Objects As Such into Phenomena and Noumena” (A235/B294).
Kant, I. (1781/1787) Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Aesthetic (A19–A30 / B33–B48), translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Lienkaemper, Caitlin (2017). Toric Ideals, Polytopes, and Convex Neural Codes, HMC Senior Theses, Harvey Mudd College. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/hmc_theses/106
Pantsar, M. (2024). Numerical Cognition and the Epistemology of Arithmetic. Cambridge University Press
Penrose, R. (1967) Twistor Algebra, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 8(2), pp. 345–366. doi:10.1063/1.1705200
Roibu, T. (2025) The Polynon: A Geometry of Consciousness
Thompson, P. W., & Saldanha, L. A. (Year not specified). Epistemological analyses of mathematical ideas: A research methodology. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education – North America (pp. 313-319). University of Arizona.
Weinstein, E. (2021) Geometric Unity
Wheeler, J. A. (1983) “Law without Law,” in Quantum Theory and Measurement, edited by J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, Princeton University Press, pp. 182–213.