PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 8, 20260 citationsOpen Access

THE MODAL DISCIPLINE OF GEOMETRIZATION: a critical–propositional analysis of The Geometrization of Unified Field Theory, by Ilija Barukčić, in confrontation with the Theory of Objectivity

View Full Paper
VCVidamor CabannasDSDenivaldo Silva

Key Points

  • The study aims to critically analyze Ilija Barukčić’s geometrization of unified field theory in light of the Theory of Objectivity.
  • Conducted a critical–propositional examination of Barukčić’s work.
  • Investigated structural compatibilities with the Theory of Objectivity.
  • Analyzed the role of geometry in ontological discourse.
  • Incorporated phenomenic elements and the cosmogonic theorem.
  • Engaged with foundational texts in physics, cosmology, and philosophy.
  • Identified important structural compatibilities between Barukčić’s proposal and the Theory of Objectivity.
  • Argued that geometrization is insufficient as an absolute origin in the context of TO.
  • Proposed reclassification of geometrization as a secondary expression of a relational ontology.
  • Illustrated how geometrization aligns with stabilized relational processes.

Abstract

This article presents a critical–propositional examination of Ilija Barukčić’s The Geometrization of Unified Field Theory in confrontation with the Theory of Objectivity (TO). The study investigates Barukčić’s proposal that the four fundamental fields of nature may be unified through geometrization, interpreting mass, charge, energy, and interaction as expressions of spacetime geometry. From the perspective of the Theory of Objectivity, the article identifies important structural compatibilities, especially in the rejection of naive materialism and in the search for a deeper unifying order behind observable physics. At the same time, it argues that the geometrical proposal remains modally insufficient as an account of absolute origin, since geometry, in TO, must be understood as a derived layer of manifestation rather than the first principle of reality. The article develops this confrontation through the modal discipline of TO, articulating the discussion with phenomenic elements, Inductive Effects, the cosmogonic theorem of the Theory of Objectivity, and its cosmological Eras. It also incorporates the understanding of the transcendent element as knowledge or information produced in atomic relations, equivalent to atomic radiations. In this sense, the study proposes that geometrization may be reclassified, under TO, as a late-regime formal grammar of already stabilized relational and phenomenic processes. By placing Barukčić’s preprint in dialogue with the foundational bibliography of TO, its recent developments on modal ontology and testability, and a broader support bibliography in physics, cosmology, and philosophy of science, the article offers both a critique and a constructive pathway. Its central thesis is that geometrization has theoretical value, but only when disciplined as a secondary and regional expression of a more fundamental modal-relational ontology. Keywords Theory of Objectivity; Modal Ontology; Unified Field Theory; Geometrization; Ilija Barukčić; Philosophy of Physics; Cosmology; Phenomenic Elements; Inductive Effects; Cosmogonic Theorem; Foundations of Physics; Spacetime Geometry; Ontological Physics; Critical-Propositional Analysis; Zenodo

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Cabannas et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d5f0d774eaea4b11a7a514https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19445658
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper