Semantics as a Fundamental Property of Reality: From Matter to Language

Is meaning exclusively the result of human interpretation, or are there more fundamental relationships in nature that make semantics possible?

This question lies at the intersection of the philosophy of science, theoretical physics, biology, and the study of language. It does not presuppose that the Universe is literally a text. Rather, it proposes a thought experiment: can we identify structural relationships in the organization of reality that resemble, in certain respects, the way systems of signs are organized?

1. The Snowflake and Language: What Is Determined by Nature, and What Is Created by Humans?

The shape of a snowflake does not arise arbitrarily. Its geometry is determined by the physical properties of water, hydrogen bonding, temperature, humidity, and crystallization conditions. At the same time, the specific shape of each snowflake depends on numerous environmental variables.

Language also has constraints that do not depend on the arbitrary decisions of an individual. The human capacity for language is rooted in biology, the characteristics of human cognition, social interaction, and learning. However, this does not mean that all linguistic structures or meanings are predetermined by matter.

Two levels must be distinguished here:

• Form: the constraints that determine which structures are possible and how elements can be combined.
• Meaning: the relationships through which a particular form refers to an object, action, state, or concept.

For example, the Russian word дерево and the English word tree refer to the same class of objects, even though their phonetic forms differ. This points to the historical and social conditioning of linguistic labels. At the same time, human perception is not entirely independent of the physical properties of the world: acoustics, vision, motor experience, and the characteristics of the nervous system influence the formation of categories and modes of expression.

The question, therefore, is not whether every linguistic form is predetermined by physics, but rather: to what extent are the ways in which humans create and perceive meanings constrained by the structure of the world itself?

The hypothesis that sound and meaning are related can be investigated through phonosemantics, sound symbolism, perceptual characteristics, and cross-linguistic patterns. However, similarities between sounds or meanings do not, by themselves, prove a universal connection between them. Such a claim requires comparisons, control samples, and testable criteria.

2. Matter, Information, and Meaning

Further investigation requires distinguishing between physical states, information, and semantics.

1. Physical distinction. Two states of a system may differ in measurable characteristics.
2. Information. Differences between states can be described and used to identify patterns or reduce uncertainty.
3. Functional significance. Within an organized system, a particular difference may have consequences for how the system operates.
4. Semantics. A distinction is interpreted as representing something within a particular system of relationships.

These levels are related, but they are not identical. The existence of a physical distinction does not necessarily imply information in every possible sense of the term. Information, in turn, does not necessarily have semantic content. The central research task is to determine under what conditions, and through which mechanisms, one level gives rise to another.

This leads to a broader question: is meaning exclusively the result of human interpretation, or can forms of functional significance arise independently of human language?

3. Quantum Entanglement: Relationships Beyond Ordinary Spatial Proximity

Quantum entanglement demonstrates that the joint state of several quantum systems cannot always be described as a simple sum of independent states of their individual components. Measurements of such systems can exhibit correlations that cannot be explained by classical models based on local hidden variables.

This physical phenomenon invites philosophical consideration: perhaps our familiar conception of separate objects is not always the most fundamental way to describe reality, and relationships between objects may play an independent role.

As a thought experiment, entangled particles can be imagined as elements of a system whose connection cannot be reduced to the distance between them. In a textual analogy, this resembles a reference linking distant passages: the positions of elements on a page do not, by themselves, determine the nature of the relationship between them.

However, the analogy has limits. Quantum entanglement does not prove semantic identity between particles, does not permit controllable information to be transmitted faster than light, and does not demonstrate that consciousness causes quantum outcomes. The issue here is the physical structure of relationships, not established meaning.

The research question can be formulated as follows: to what extent is describing reality through relationships between elements more fundamental than describing it through the elements themselves? And can a rigorous distinction be drawn between physical correlation and a relationship that has functional or semantic significance?

4. The Ribosome as an Interpretive System

Biology provides a more concrete example of the relationship between physical distinctions and functional significance. In a cell, the nucleotide sequence of messenger RNA helps determine the amino acid sequence produced during protein synthesis.

The ribosome interacts with messenger RNA and transfer RNAs. Other molecular components establish the correspondence between codons and amino acids. The result is a system in which nucleotide sequences participate in organizing a biological process.

The ribosome can therefore be described, by analogy, as a “translator”: it participates in implementing correspondences between a nucleotide sequence and an amino acid sequence. This is not merely a literary metaphor; translation is an established mechanism in molecular biology.

However, calling the ribosome a “translator” does not mean that it possesses consciousness or understands instructions in the human sense. Functional interpretation here is determined by the organization of the biochemical system and its role in cellular activity.

This example allows us to pose a more precise question: when does a physical correspondence become a functional code? What properties must a system possess for a sequence of elements not merely to trigger a reaction, but to participate in the reproducible organization of a complex process?

Perhaps this is one of the transitions from information to semantics: physical distinctions acquire functional significance within a stably organized system. But can this principle be extended beyond biology, for example, to other forms of self-organization? That requires separate investigation.

5. Oscillation, Resonance, and the Organization of Matter

Oscillation and resonance occur in mechanical, acoustic, electrical, and other physical systems. Systems that differ in their physical nature can sometimes be described using similar mathematical models. This makes it possible to investigate general patterns of stability, periodicity, and interaction.

Musical harmony can serve as an intuitive analogy for discussing relationships between elements of a system. However, physical oscillation, mathematical structure, and human aesthetic perception must be distinguished. The fact that two phenomena can be described by similar equations does not mean that they have the same nature or meaning.

Within this analogy, material structures can be viewed as the outcomes of interactions among multiple constraints and processes. Certain configurations remain stable, while others rapidly break down. In biological systems, physical constraints are supplemented by developmental history and evolutionary selection.

This raises another question: are there general structural principles connecting physical stability, the organization of complex systems, and the emergence of functional relationships? If such principles exist, can they be described independently of the particular material in which they are realized?

6. The Universe as a Text: The Limits of the Analogy

If we temporarily use a text as a model for thinking about reality, the following scheme can be proposed:

• Alphabet: distinguishable physical states and elements.
• Grammar: regularities and constraints that determine possible interactions.
• Syntax: the organization of elements into complex structures.
• Semantics: functional relationships, interpretation, and meaning arising within particular systems.
• Reader: a system capable of distinguishing states and using those distinctions in a process of interpretation.

The first three points allow us to draw analogies between formal systems and the physical organization of the world. The fourth and fifth require more rigorous definitions: a physical regularity is not necessarily a grammar, and a complex structure does not necessarily possess semantic content.

The statement “the Universe is a text” should therefore be understood, for now, as a research metaphor rather than an established description of physical reality. The value of this metaphor depends on whether it helps formulate questions, generate testable predictions, and reveal patterns that might otherwise remain unnoticed.

7. If the Universe Is a Text, Who Is the Author?

This question arises naturally, but the answer depends on how literally we understand the original metaphor. If we are referring to a mathematical structure, the existence of an author is not a necessary assumption. If we are referring to a system of physical relationships, the word “text” may simply describe one way of conceptualizing its organization. If, however, reality is assumed to contain meaning that cannot be reduced to physical relationships, a separate metaphysical problem emerges.

Several approaches can be distinguished:

1. Mathematical structure. The regularities of nature exist without requiring us to assume an intention or an author. The central question is why mathematical descriptions are applicable to the observable world.
2. The primacy of relationships. The properties of objects are determined not only by the objects themselves, but also by their relationships with one another. In this model, structure can exist without an external design.
3. The emergence of meaning in organized systems. Physical distinctions acquire functional significance in systems capable of using them to maintain their organization. Biology provides concrete examples of this process.
4. Meaning as a fundamental property of reality. This is a stronger philosophical hypothesis: it proposes that meaning cannot be reduced to human interpretation or to the functions of living systems. To justify it, we must define what meaning means outside such systems and how this claim can be distinguished from a metaphor.

These approaches should not be conflated. The existence of mathematical regularities does not prove the existence of universal meaning; the presence of functional organization in living systems does not prove that all matter possesses semantics. Neither conclusion, by itself, establishes or rules out the existence of an Author.

8. A Thought Experiment: A Universe Without an Observer

Imagine a Universe in which life and consciousness never emerged. Particles, fields, stars, chemical reactions, and physical regularities still exist. But there is no being capable of observing, describing, or interpreting what happens.

Does such a Universe contain meaning? Or does it contain only physical states, relationships, and regularities that become meaningful only when a system capable of interpreting them appears?

To answer this, we must clarify what we mean by “meaning.” If meaning is defined as human interpretation, it would not exist without humans. If meaning is defined as functional significance, we can investigate whether this concept applies to living systems and other forms of organization. If meaning is instead considered a property of matter itself, an independent criterion is needed to distinguish such semantics from ordinary physical relationships.

This thought experiment does not provide a ready-made answer. Its purpose is to expose a hidden assumption on which the entire concept depends: must meaning have an interpreter, or can it exist independently of any interpreting subject?

9. Practical Implications and the Limits of the Model

Viewing natural and biological systems as complex networks of interactions may help us formulate certain practical problems in new ways.

Ecology. Environmental pollution can disrupt connections within ecosystems, alter chemical conditions, interfere with communication between organisms, and reduce the stability of ecological processes. The expression “semantic noise” can serve as a metaphor for such disruptions, but scientific analysis requires the identification of specific signals, mechanisms, and measurable consequences.

Medicine. An organism can be studied as an interconnected system of regulation and signal transmission. However, treatment requires specific biological mechanisms, clinical evidence, and verifiable outcomes. Describing disease as an error in a universal text is not an established medical explanation.

Cognition. Scientific research can be understood not only as the search for individual facts, but also as the identification of relationships between observations. Any discovered pattern must withstand independent testing rather than merely fit an appealing analogy.

The complexity and information content of a system do not, by themselves, establish its moral value. Ethics requires additional grounds, such as well-being, the capacity to experience suffering, autonomy, and the consequences of actions.

10. Turning a Thought Experiment into a Research Program

To prevent the idea of a relationship between semantics and the structure of reality from remaining merely a philosophical metaphor, it can be developed step by step:

1. Define the distinctions between physical state, information, function, and semantic meaning.
2. Study biological systems in which observable mechanisms of coding, correspondence, and functional interpretation exist.
3. Investigate general principles of organization and self-organization in complex systems without equating physical structure with meaning.
4. Compare these principles with language: its phonetic forms, graphemes, sequences, roots, contexts, and historical changes.
5. Formulate testable predictions, define criteria for confirmation and falsification in advance, and determine whether the results hold up on independent material.

It is important to allow not only for the refinement of hypotheses, but also for abandoning them. Refuting one analogy does not necessarily refute the original question, but every new claim must have its own supporting grounds.

Conclusion

Perhaps human semantics is not an entirely isolated invention of consciousness, but emerges from more fundamental relationships that exist in nature. For now, however, this remains an open hypothesis, not an established fact.

Physical regularities, biological organization, linguistic systems, and human understanding reveal different forms of structure and relationships. The central task is to determine where genuine mechanisms connect them and where the resemblance is limited to analogy.

The question “Is the Universe a text?” may therefore be more productive not as a declaration, but as a starting point for a more precise question:

Is meaning exclusively the result of human interpretation, or are there more fundamental relationships in nature that make semantics possible?

Answering this question requires us to distinguish physical structure, information, functional organization, and conscious understanding. Only then can we assess whether “the Universe as a text” is merely a way of thinking or a model whose individual claims can be rigorously tested.

11. Mind as a Pattern of Matter: A Closed Cycle of Cognition

When considering the Universe as a system of physical relationships, another question arises: what exactly should be understood by an observer? Must an observer necessarily be an intelligent being, or is a physical system interacting with its environment sufficient?

Several levels must be distinguished here. A physical system can interact with another system and leave a distinguishable result. A living organism can perceive signals and use them to regulate its processes. Reason, in turn, makes it possible to construct models of the surrounding world, compare observations, formulate questions, and investigate the regularities of which reason itself is a part.

These levels are not identical, yet a certain progression in the increasing complexity of organization can be traced between them. This raises a question: is the emergence of reason an accidental result of the evolution of matter, or is the capacity to give rise to cognition somehow connected with the fundamental properties of reality itself?

The Matter from Which Reason Emerges

Let us imagine the following sequence: physical interactions create the conditions for the formation of complex structures; under certain conditions, living systems emerge; some of these systems develop the ability to perceive their environment, accumulate information, construct models, and investigate the causes of what happens.

In that case, reason does not exist beyond the boundaries of the Universe. It emerges within it and represents one form of the organization of matter capable of investigating reality itself.

This allows us to formulate the following idea: through reason, the matter that gave rise to it becomes capable of studying its own properties, regularities, and conditions of existence.

However, it is important here to distinguish possibility from inevitability. The fact that matter is capable of giving rise to reason does not, by itself, prove that reason must necessarily emerge in every Universe or that its emergence is a necessary consequence of known physical laws. This is a separate question that requires investigation.

The Closed Loop: From Matter to Cognition and Back

If reason emerges within the Universe and investigates it, a kind of closed sequence appears:

This sequence does not mean that the Universe needs human beings or another intelligent entity in order to exist. It points to something else: the process of cognition is itself part of the reality it investigates.

A feedback loop emerges. Matter creates the conditions for the emergence of a cognitive system, and that system investigates matter, including the conditions of its own emergence. Reality becomes an object of cognition from within reality itself.

But can we go further? Is it possible that the relationship between matter and reason cannot be reduced to a relationship of origin, and that a more fundamental interdependence exists between them?

Here, two positions must be distinguished. According to the first, reason emerges in the material Universe, but the existence of the Universe does not depend on the presence of an intelligent observer. According to the second, the possibility of reason emerging is connected with the fundamental structure of reality so deeply that matter and reason are interrelated at a fundamental level.

The second position is a stronger philosophical hypothesis. The fact that matter can give rise to reason does not, by itself, imply that reason is necessary for matter to exist. Additional argumentation would be required to substantiate such mutual necessity.

An Open Question: Does Reason Discover Meaning or Create It?

If reason emerges within matter and is capable of discovering stable regularities, another question arises: does it create the relationships it describes, or does it discover relationships that existed independently of it?

Mathematical regularities do not first come into existence at the moment when humans express them in formulas. However, this does not in itself mean that the Universe is literally a text or that every physical regularity possesses semantic content.

Perhaps it is necessary here to distinguish the existence of relationships from their interpretation. Relationships may exist independently of human beings, whereas turning those relationships into conscious knowledge requires a system capable of distinguishing, comparing, and interpreting them.

In that case, reason does not necessarily create meaning out of nothing, nor does it necessarily read a message prepared in advance. It participates in the process through which the structure of reality becomes an object of understanding.

This brings us back to the original question: is semantics exclusively a result of the activity of consciousness, or are there more fundamental relationships on the basis of which meaning becomes possible?

Concluding Remark

The analogies, thought experiments, and questions considered here do not claim the status of a finished theory. Their purpose is not to replace scientific explanations with philosophical imagery or to declare a hypothesis a proven fact, but to identify questions that deserve further investigation.

I hope these reflections and thought experiments will be understood as an attempt to understand, rather than as speculation for its own sake or an attempt to impose a particular worldview. This is an attempt to examine how reality is structured, how life and reason emerge within it, how meaning takes shape, and what place cognition occupies in the Universe itself.

There is no need to choose a definitive answer in advance. Some hypotheses may receive confirmation, others may require substantial revision, and still others may have to be abandoned. This is a natural part of the research process.