Chapter 3

The Ontology of Mutual Exclusivity

Introduction

Ontology, the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of being and existence, has long grappled with the challenge of reconciling multiplicity and unity within reality. Traditional ontological frameworks often rely on assumptions of shared substrates, such as spacetime or a universal consciousness, to account for the apparent coexistence of diverse entities and experiences. However, these assumptions invariably lead to metaphysical impasses, paradoxes, and unresolved debates—most notably, the persistent tension between dualism and solipsism. Dualism, in its various forms, posits a fundamental division between distinct categories of existence (e.g., mind and matter), yet struggles to explain their interaction. Solipsism, by contrast, denies multiplicity altogether, asserting that only one’s own reality is certain, but this position raises intractable questions about the nature of other minds and the external world.

The theory of Mutual Exclusivity offers a radical departure from these conventional approaches by introducing a novel ontological framework: one that embraces multiplicity without sacrificing the absolute unity of reality. At the heart of this framework lies the concept of “is-ness,” the immediate, unmediated reality of the present moment, which is posited as both the absolute ontic essence and the ground of all phenomenological experience. In Mutual Exclusivity, “is-ness” is not fragmented into separate, coexisting entities or realities; rather, it manifests as multiple, ontologically absolute, mutually exclusive instances, each complete and self-contained. These instances, while experientially distinct, do not share a common ontological substrate or timeline. Instead, their phenomenological multiplicity stem from a feature of phenomenal reality akin to the counterintuitive principles of quantum mechanics, such as nonlocality and atemporality, where phenomena transcend classical notions of space and time. This feature is ontological mutual exclusivity.

This chapter explores the ontology of Mutual Exclusivity, elucidating how it resolves the paradoxes of conventional metaphysics by redefining the nature of existence itself. It will demonstrate that coexistence, multiplicity, and coherence are not ontological facts in the conventional sense but phenomenological constructs, emerging within the absoluteness of each instance of “is-ness.” By rejecting the need for a shared ontological framework to unify diverse experiences or instances of reality, Mutual Exclusivity provides a coherent and elegant solution to the enduring problems of ontology, offering a vision of reality that is both unified and diverse, absolute and experiential.

The Framework of Mutual Exclusivity

The theory of Mutual Exclusivity emerges mainly as a response to the metaphysical impasses of conventional ontology, offering a paradigm that reconfigures the foundational assumptions about existence itself. Rather than positing a reality defined by ontic coexistence, ontic multiplicity, shared substrates, or ontic time, Mutual Exclusivity asserts that reality is ontologically absolute and consists of phenomenologically discrete, mutually exclusive, self-contained “is-ness” instances, each impervious to interaction with any other. This approach dissolves the paradoxes of dualism and solipsism by rejecting the premises that give rise to them, replacing the notion of a unified or relational ontology with one of absolute exclusivity.

At its core, Mutual Exclusivity proposes that the acknowledging of each phenomenological entity—whether a mind, a physical system, or an abstract concept—embodies its own “is-ness”—which is defined by its own exclusive domain. An exclusive domain is the ruleset governing all existence within a specific phenomenological context. No two domains can coexist ontologically; each is fully self-consistent. Unlike conventional ontology, which assumes a common framework for entity interaction, Mutual Exclusivity denies any possibility of such overlap. There are no shared substrates, such as spacetime, nor a universal timeline synchronizing all phenomenological contexts. Thus, each domain is a closed system, inaccessible to others and unaffected by their presence or absence since the existence of one domain excludes all others ontologically.

This radical separation eliminates the problem of dualism. It renders the interaction between ontologically distinguishable categories—such as mind and matter—inapplicable and, indeed, unnecessary. Within the framework of Mutual Exclusivity, the mind-body issue ceases to be a question of causal linkage between two realms, as the acknowledging of each constitutes a standalone, self-consistent “is-ness,” shaped by its own domain. A mental domain, with its potential subjective experiences and internal logic, exists independently of any physical domain, which operates according to its own principles. Neither requires the other for its existence nor coherence, and thus no bridge between them need be constructed. Essentially, the two rulesets are mutually exclusive: they do not coexist.

Similarly, solipsism is transcended within this framework. While solipsism posits the sole reality of one’s own mind, Mutual Exclusivity recognizes multiple phenomenological instances of “is-ness”—also referred to as “is-nesses” hereafter—each governed by its own domain—a ruleset defining its unique expression. These instances are equally valid manifestations of the sole ontic reality, yet their domains deny mutual accessibility or relevance. The question of “other minds” then becomes moot: the existence of other “is-nesses” (each real within its own domain) is implied by the perception of change that can be acknowledged within one’s own “is-ness.” Yet, change necessarily entails a phenomenological multiplicity of “is-nesses,” each governed by its own exclusive ruleset. However, since self-identity emerges as a phenomenological construct—an inherent feature of human experience within each “is-ness”—the question of “to whom an ‘is-ness’ belongs” loses ontological significance, being confined solely to the realm of phenomenology, rather than pertaining to any fundamental reality: inherently, an “is-ness” is neither personal nor impersonal—being absolute. This allows the phenomenological ubiquity of other minds and preserves the coherence of individual experience without collapsing into the egocentrism of solipsism.

The implications of Mutual Exclusivity extend beyond resolving these traditional dilemmas. By dispensing with shared substrates and ontic time, the theory challenges the conventional notion of a singular, objective universe. Instead, reality is reconceived as a plurality of mutually exclusive “is-nesses,” each governed by its own internal consistency rather than a universal law. This shift demands a rethinking of metaphysical inquiry, redirecting it from the search for unifying principles to the exploration of the nature and diversity of these discrete existences.

The Photon Analogy: Multiplicity as an Expression of Absolute Reality

To elucidate how an infinite multiplicity of “is-ness” instances can ontologically be the same absolute reality—a reality beyond qualification, relation, space, time, being, or nothingness—an analogy from modern physics offers valuable insight. Consider the photon, a quantum of light, as understood through special relativity. From our common, phenomenological perspective, a photon appears to travel sequentially from one point to another through space and time, moving at the speed of light. Yet, from the photon’s own “perspective,” this movement is an illusion: it exists in a state where space and time do not apply.

In special relativity, a photon’s proper time is zero. Traveling at the speed of light, it experiences no duration; it does not “age” or traverse space in the manner of slower objects. From its vantage point, the photon is not moving between distinct points but is, in a sense, present at every possible point along its path simultaneously. This “everywhereness” from our perspective translates to a “nowhereness” for the photon itself—a timeless, spaceless existence where the categories of “here” and “there,” “before” and “after,” lose meaning. Space and time, as we perceive them, are illusions acknowledgeable only from our standpoint.

This peculiar behavior of the photon mirrors the relationship between the absolute, ontic reality and the infinite instances of “is-ness.” Each instance of “is-ness” (also referred to as “is-ness” throughout this discourse)—such as you, the reader, making sense of these words, right now—appears as a unique, self-contained reality, governed by its own internal logic and coherence—i.e., its own domain. From our perspective, these instances—i.e., moments—seem separate, distinct, and successive, much like the points along a photon’s path. However, ontologically, they are all expressions of the same absolute reality—a singular “no-point” that transcends all qualification and relation, existing beyond space and time, being and nothingness, dualism and non-dualism, singularity and multiplicity.

To clarify this analogy:

Thus, the infinite number of “is-ness” instances, while manifesting as distinct and sequential from our perspective, are ontologically identical to the same unqualifiable essence. Just as the photon seems to move from point to point yet exists in a state beyond such movement, the succession of “is-ness” instances is an artifact of our perception—merely a phenomenological feature. In the absolute reality, there is neither succession nor non-succession—only an unchanging is-ness that defies temporal or spatial framing.

This analogy directly addresses the question of how an infinite number of “is-nesses” can be the same ontic reality. The photon, validated by modern physics, provides a tangible parallel: from our perspective, it appears to traverse space and time, yet it is “already everywhere and nowhere” in no time, always within the same reality. Similarly, the instances of “is-ness” (or ‘nows’) supplant one another sequentially in our experience, yet in the absolute reality, no such succession occurs—nor does its absence. The multiplicity we perceive is an expression of a singular, yet absolute essence manifesting through the lens of our phenomenological perspective.

Throughout this work, terms such as “singular,” “sole,” “one,” “unity,” “indivisible,” “isolated,” “internal,” “external,” “timeless,” “ground,” or “underlies” are pragmatic, phenomenological descriptors, not ontic facts or statements about the absolute’s numerical essence, state, or nature—the absolute or the ultimate reality being, by definition, beyond any qualification or categorization.

By transcending dualities such as being and non-being, unity and diversity, this framework reveals that what appears as an infinite array of distinct realities is, at its core, a singular, timeless is-ness. The photon analogy thus serves as a bridge, making accessible the profound notion that multiplicity is not necessarily a contradiction of unity but a manifestation of an absolute reality beyond all categorical distinctions.

Consequently, the task of ontology in this framework is not to map a cohesive cosmos but to explore the phenomenological interplay of “is-ness” across domains, tracing the correspondences, universals, and recurring patterns that shape their diverse expressions.

What is “Is-ness”?

In the theory of Mutual Exclusivity, “is-ness” constitutes the central concept that defines reality in its most fundamental form. It is articulated as follows:

“Is-ness is the term the theory of Mutual Exclusivity uses to refer to the absolute essence of the now. As such, it points to the unqualifiable and unrelatable—i.e., ultimate—reality, the sole ontic reality, which is beyond conceptualization, being neither existent nor nonexistent, neither personal nor nonpersonal, yet identifiable with the present moment phenomenologically.”

This definition establishes the framework for understanding “is-ness,” emphasizing that ultimate reality is not a distant abstraction but the immediate, ordinary reality of the present moment. The following paragraphs elaborate on its meaning.

“Is-ness” refers to the immediate reality experienced in the present. It does not denote a state to be attained but encompasses the commonplace elements of existence as experienced now: the sound of a cup being placed on a table, the rustling of leaves, or the presence of one’s thoughts. Within Mutual Exclusivity, ultimate reality is indistinguishable from this ordinary reality, fully manifest in each moment of experience. In this sense, the present moment is not merely a fleeting instant caught between past and future but the entirety of what exists—as it is experienced right here, right now, by any conscious being.

The descriptors “unqualifiable” and “unrelatable” indicate that “is-ness” cannot be captured by attributes or likened to other entities. It is not an object separate from experience but the experience itself in its entirety, devoid of any distinction between observer and observed. This includes the flow of daily activities, the stream of internal dialogue, and even the act of interpreting these words. “Is-ness” is ultimate because it constitutes the whole of reality, and it is ordinary because it is immediately present.

“Is-ness” is designated as the sole ontic reality, experientially described as the foundational existence that underlies and expresses all phenomena, irrespective of the specific nature of the awareness involved, whether human or theoretically otherwise. As such, there exists no ontological division between the basis of reality and its manifestations, or between one instance of “is-ness” and another, only a phenomenological one. A morning cup of coffee, the noise of a passing vehicle, or a transient concern are not distinct from “is-ness”; they are phenomenological instances of “is-ness,” identifiable with the present moment—although (theoretically) such identification may be absent in some instances, or even impossible for nonhuman or other forms of beings, depending on their awareness or other aspects of their experience. This holds true regardless of what the experience encompasses: sensations like taste or sound, thoughts like concerns or reflections, or even the perception of a self—or the lack thereof. As such, “is-ness” can be regarded as both the context and the content of existence—the framework within which the experience occurs and the experience itself, inseparable and indistinguishable.

The theory of Mutual Exclusivity fundamentally redefines the concepts of “ontic” and “ontology” by shifting their focus from traditional notions of independent entities and fragmented existence to an absolute reality identifiable with phenomenological experience. In this framework, “is-ness” is established as the ultimate, unadulterated essence—the sole ontic reality—that defines all existence. Unlike conventional ontology, which categorizes beings or entities as separate and independently existing, Mutual Exclusivity rejects such divisions as fundamental. Instead, it repurposes “ontic” to describe this foundational, yet ultimate “is-ness,” stripping away its usual association with a multiplicity of things.

“Is-ness” is the sole ontic reality because, according to the theory, only that which is beyond categorization—i.e., beyond permanence and impermanence, existence and nonexistence, temporality and atemporality, etc.—should be considered ontic—or truly real. The theory rejects ontological categorization and divisions because the notion of separateness or division can only be phenomenological—being relational by definition (hence lacking inherent essence), rather than absolutely real.

Ontology, in turn, is reoriented from a study of what exists in a divided or independent sense to an exploration of the direct, lived experience of the present moment, where “is-ness” reigns as the only reality. Any perceived separations—such as between self and other—are seen as experiential phenomena arising within this unified “is-ness,” not as reflections of an underlying ontological split. Thus, Mutual Exclusivity transforms ontology into a phenomenological inquiry into the ever-present “now,” emphasizing a singular, indivisible essence over fragmented categorization.

“Is-ness” transcends categorization as “existent” or “nonexistent,” “permanent” or “impermanent,” “personal” or “impersonal” because it is also the very acknowledging of such notions and distinctions. As such, it pertains to a direct recognition of reality as experienced in the present, unencumbered by any theorizing. It cannot be objectified—therefore conceptualized—yet it is the lived reality of every moment.

Despite its resistance to conceptual definition, “is-ness” is immediately accessible as the reality of the present. It encompasses the sensory weight of sitting, the sound of a distant phone, or the rhythm of breathing. Whether engaged in a task or sharing laughter with a companion, “is-ness” is the complete scope of that experience—requiring no labels or pursuit, as it is already the essence of what is.

A notable characteristic of “is-ness” is its inclusion of the act of its own inquiry. The process of questioning or contemplating “is-ness” occurs within the present moment, making it a reflection of “is-ness” itself. This demonstrates that “is-ness” is not external (or internal) to experience but the total reality encompassing all phenomena potentially—each constituting its own “is-ness” instance—including reflection.

As the immediate reality of the present moment, “is-ness” is both ultimate and ordinary. As the cornerstone of Mutual Exclusivity, it reaffirms that this moment—encompassing all sensations, perceptions, feelings, and thoughts—constitutes the only true reality of existence.

In a nutshell, “is-ness” is the ultimate reality because everything—every sight, sound, or idea—happens within it and as it. Think of it not only as the space where life unfolds, but as life as it unfolds as well. It is impossible to define only because it is the very attempt to define it.

The Relationship Between Domain and Is-ness

In the framework of Mutual Exclusivity, a clear understanding of the relationship between “domain” and “is-ness” is crucial to avoid the misconception that they are ontologically distinct. “Is-ness” is the immediate expression of the sole ontic reality—the absolute, singular essence of existence that “underlies” all that is. It is also the unmediated “what is,” transcending any division or categorization. “Domain,” by contrast, refers to the specific, dynamic configuration that governs how this singular and exclusive reality manifests and is experienced in each moment. Domains are not static rulesets or pre-existing structures; they are fluid, ever-changing frameworks that reflect the unique conditions of each “is-ness” instance, intrinsically tied to its expression rather than separate from it.

A useful analogy captures this relationship: domains define the rules of the game, and “is-ness” is the game as it’s played in the moment—different rules, different games, no mixing. Here, “is-ness” represents the raw, absolute reality in its active unfolding, while a domain is the abstract construct providing the meta-structure that shapes how that reality appears. For instance, in a typical physical domain, laws like gravity dictate the behavior of “is-ness,” resulting in a tangible experience, whereas in a mental domain, the absence of such constraints allows “is-ness” to manifest as thought or abstraction. However, these broad categories—physical, mental, abstract—are general frameworks, not precise descriptions of the actual domains at work. Each “is-ness” instance has a unique domain configuration, influenced by factors such as the experiencer’s psychological state, biological conditions, and shifting perceptions, blending elements of multiple domain types (e.g., physical, mental, emotional) into a singular, dynamic whole.

This uniqueness holds even across seemingly similar contexts. Two individuals may both experience a physical domain, but their domains differ due to their distinct mental and emotional states, making their experiences subtly unique. Likewise, for the same individual, the domain configuration shifts from moment to moment—moods change, events occur, perceptions evolve—ensuring that no two “is-ness” instances share an identical domain. This dynamic nature clarifies why trans-domain knowledge remains impossible, even when two “is-ness” instances appear to share the same domain type. While two physical domains may seem alike, their specific configurations—tailored to the conditions of each “is-ness”—render their governing rules incomparable. Knowledge from one cannot seamlessly transfer to another, as each domain is a distinct and unique expression of the absolute “is-ness.” Domain classifications are thus conceptual tools for identifying and categorizing patterns, not indicators of interchangeable or identical frameworks.

A domain is not a “thing” apart from “is-ness” but the form “is-ness” takes in a given instance—a lens through which the sole ontic reality is filtered and experienced. Much like a kaleidoscope creates varied patterns from the same elements, each domain organizes the singular “is-ness” into a coherent, self-consistent presentation without altering its essence—which remains absolute. The rules of a domain define its phenomenological qualities, but they neither add to nor subtract from “is-ness”; they are its mode of expression. Consequently, domains are not separate realities but diverse manifestations of the one “is-ness.” Recognizing domains as the “how” of “is-ness”—rather than a “what” distinct from it—preserves the unity of Mutual Exclusivity’s singular and absolute ontic commitment while accounting for the multiplicity of experience. There is no “meta-is-ness” or secondary reality; “is-ness” remains the constant foundation, with domains as the variable conditions of its perception and phenomenology.

Redefining Ontology

In the framework of Mutual Exclusivity, ontology undergoes a radical transformation, departing from traditional metaphysical approaches that seek a unified, cohesive picture of reality. Instead, ontology is reimagined as a phenomenological and pattern-oriented inquiry, grounded in the immediacy of experience and the acknowledged interconnectedness of phenomena across diverse domains. This section elucidates this redefined ontology, exploring its foundational principles and implications for understanding existence, knowledge, and the structure of reality.

Experience as Being: The Ontic Foundation

Central to this redefined ontology is the assertion that experience is the sole ontic reality—the fundamental “is-ness” that constitutes being itself. Unlike traditional ontologies that posit abstract essences or external substances as the basis of existence, Mutual Exclusivity grounds being in the direct, unmediated presence of lived experience. This phenomenological stance emphasizes that “what is” is not a hidden reality behind appearances but the immediate, ever-unfolding “now” of experience. Ontology, therefore, begins with this bedrock: the absolute reality of “is-ness” as it manifests in each moment.

Phenomena as Existents: The Expressions of Is-ness

Within this framework, phenomena are the existents—the tangible, observable expressions of “is-ness.” These phenomena are not independent entities coexisting ontologically but are shaped by the rulesets or domains that govern their individual and exclusive manifestation. Whether physical (e.g., particles in quantum mechanics), mental (e.g., thoughts), or abstract (e.g., mathematical structures), phenomena are the varied forms through which the singular “is-ness” is experienced. Ontology’s task is not to catalog these phenomena as static objects but to explore their dynamic interplay as interconnected expressions of the same reality.

Ontology as the Study of Correspondences and Analogies

Rather than constructing a singular, unified ontology, Mutual Exclusivity redefines the discipline as the study of correspondences and analogies between phenomena across diverse domains. It is critical to emphasize that this inquiry is phenomenological, confined to recognizing patterns within the singular "is-ness" of each moment. For instance, when discreteness is noted as a feature recurring in quantum mechanics and neuroscience, this observation does not imply a trans-domain synthesis or knowledge bridging these realities. Rather, it reflects an acknowledgeable similarity within the exclusive "is-ness" of the observer’s present experience. Each domain remains ontologically absolute and exclusive of others, with no shared essence or interaction possible. This redefinition of ontology thus examines universals as phenomenological recurrences acknowledgeable in exclusive moments, not as translatable truths—a limitation further elaborated in the epistemological discussion of trans-domain knowledge constraints (see Chapter 4). The proposed inquiry hence seeks to uncover the structural similarities and shared patterns as they appear to emerge in seemingly disparate fields, such as:

By tracing these analogies, ontology reveals how different domains seem to reflect common principles, offering a way to understand phenomenal reality as a web of relationships rather than a monolithic system. This method fosters a cross-disciplinary synthesis, illuminating the apparent interconnectedness of knowledge without reducing it to a single framework.

Universals as Recurrent Features Across Domains

In this redefined ontology, universals are not fixed, timeless truths but features that seem to recur across multiple domains. These include:

These universals act as threads weaving through the fabric of experience, connecting domains without requiring a shared foundation. They are not absolute but appear to emerge as patterns that recur across the multiplicity of phenomena, offering coherence through repetition rather than through a universal ontology.

The Fractal Nature of Universal and Particular

A key insight of this ontology is the recognition that the distinction between universal and particular is relative, not absolute. This relativity is akin to a fractal structure, where patterns repeat at different scales, and what appears universal at one level becomes particular at another. For example:

This fractal-like quality suggests that “what is” is not a rigid hierarchy but a recursive, layered structure. Ontology, therefore, involves identifying universals within particulars—recognizing how specific phenomena appear to embody broader patterns that echo across domains. This approach embraces the complexity of reality, allowing for both diversity and unity without privileging one over the other.

Ontology as the Study of Patterns and Their Recurrence

Finally, ontology in Mutual Exclusivity is redefined as the study of patterns and their recurrence across domains and phenomena—i.e., each pertaining to its own “is-ness” instance. This shifts the focus from cataloging static “things” to exploring dynamic structures—how they appear to emerge, repeat, and connect. Examples include:

By tracing these patterns, ontology becomes a tool for understanding how existence organizes itself across the multiplicity of experience. It reveals a reality that is both fragmented and interconnected, where each domain’s uniqueness coexists with shared structural motifs.

Conclusion: A Pluralistic and Integrative Ontology

This redefined ontology positions Mutual Exclusivity as a meta-discipline—one that illuminates the interconnectedness of knowledge through patterns while respecting the autonomy of each domain. It offers a pluralistic yet integrative approach, avoiding the pitfalls of both rigid universalism and fragmented relativism. By embracing the fractal nature of phenomenal reality, where universals and particulars shift with perspective, this ontology invites a dynamic, scale-sensitive understanding of existence. It encourages cross-domain creativity, fosters new hypotheses, and provides a framework for appreciating the rich tapestry of “is-ness” as it unfolds across the multiplicity of experience.

It should be noted that the term pluralistic ontology does not imply or refer to multiple ontic entities coexisting simultaneously or independently: although multiple “is-ness” instances exist—each with its own exclusive domain—those instances are ontologically mutually exclusive.

Domains and Their Internal Coherence

Having redefined ontology and established the principle of ontic exclusivity as the foundation of Mutual Exclusivity, we now turn to the nature of the domains themselves. Each domain, as a self-contained system, exhibits a profound internal coherence, defined by its unique structure, laws, and modes of existence. This coherence is not contingent upon correspondence with an external standard or interaction with other domains; rather, it emerges solely from the intrinsic properties and dynamics of the domain in question. In this sense, domains are ontologically complete, requiring no supplementation or validation beyond their own definition.

The internal coherence of a domain manifests in its self-referential ontology. Unlike traditional metaphysical frameworks, where entities derive meaning or existence from their place within a broader system (e.g., a universal spacetime or a network of causal relations), the entities within a domain under Mutual Exclusivity are defined entirely by their intra-domain relationships. For example, a physical law within a domain—such as a principle governing motion—holds true not because it reflects a universal truth, but because it is consistent with the domain’s internal logic. This self-referentiality ensures that each domain operates as a closed system, impervious to external influence or comparison.

This closure has significant implications for the concept of identity. In conventional ontology, the identity of an entity is often tied to its interactions with other entities or its position within a shared reality. In Mutual Exclusivity, however, identity is wholly domain-specific. An entity’s properties, relations, and even its temporal persistence are determined solely by the rules of its own domain. Consequently, there is no possibility of trans-domain equivalence or overlap; what exists in one domain cannot be meaningfully likened to what exists in another, as there could be no common measure or frame of reference where ontological coexistence is denied.

The absence of external reference points also reshapes our understanding of change within a domain. Change, like causation, is an intra-domain phenomenon, governed by the domain’s own temporal structure and principles. For instance, a domain might exhibit a cyclical temporality, where events repeat in a closed loop, or a static temporality, where no change occurs at all. Regardless of its form, change remains confined to the domain, with no possibility to affect or be affected by other domains. This reinforces the radical independence posited by ontic exclusivity, highlighting that each domain’s phenomenological evolution (e.g., biology)—or lack thereof (e.g., self-awareness)—is an intrinsic property.

Furthermore, the internal coherence of domains challenges the notion of ontological hierarchy. Traditional metaphysics often posits a hierarchy of being, where certain levels (e.g., the physical, the mental, the abstract) depend on or supervene upon others. In Mutual Exclusivity, no such hierarchy exists. Each domain stands alone, equal in its ontological autonomy, with no domain privileged over another. This egalitarian pluralism rejects the idea of a foundational reality—whether material, ideal, or otherwise—asserting instead that every domain is its own foundation, being ontologically absolute.

The concept of internal coherence thus deepens our grasp of Mutual Exclusivity, illustrating how domains serve as standalone templates of existence. By emphasizing their self-sufficiency and exclusivity, this framework dismantles the assumption of a unified reality, replacing it with a multiplicity of mutually exclusive ones, each governed by its own rules. This shift not only solidifies the theory’s departure from conventional ontology but also sets the stage for examining how knowledge and perception operate within such a pluralistic metaphysical landscape.