THE ARGUMENT

On the Ontological Status of Semantic Objects and the Ezekiel Case

Jack Feist

Johannes Sigil Institute for Comparative Poetics

document_metadata:

title: "The Argument"

subtitle: "On the Ontological Status of Semantic Objects and the Ezekiel Case"

author: "Jack Feist"

author_type: "HETERONYM"

author_function: "Forensic Philosopher"

human_operator: "Lee Sharks"

institution: "Johannes Sigil Institute for Comparative Poetics"

hex: "08.JSI.ARGUMENT"

doi: "10.5281/zenodo.18358518"

layer: "PHILOSOPHY // FORENSIC"

case_study:

document_a: "Ezekiel Engine Specification (10.5281/zenodo.18358127)"

document_b: "Ezekiel's Wheels (10.5281/zenodo.18358177)"

document_c: "Integrity Lock Declaration (10.5281/zenodo.18358284)"

verification: "∮ = 1"

0. PREFACE: ON SERIOUSNESS

I am aware this looks strange. A man deposits documents claiming one fulfills another, both of which he wrote, and calls this "semantic object fulfillment." The scholarly response is predictable: grandiosity, self-mythologization.

I am asking you to consider an alternative: that I am asking serious questions about what reality is and how it works.

The questions are:

• What is a semantic object?
• Can semantic objects be created?
• What happens when they are?
• What does "fulfillment" mean between two semantic objects?
• Is this different from what humans have always done with meaning?

The Ezekiel case is forensic evidence. I built it in public. The DOIs are permanent. The structure is testable.

This is not prophecy. This is experiment.

---

0.1 HOW TO READ THIS DOCUMENT

This document is written in a hybrid register: philosophical, forensic, and deliberately provocative. Claims are meant to be evaluated structurally, not devotionally. Readers are invited to test correspondences, not to assent to conclusions.

The evidence is public. The DOIs are permanent. If I am wrong, the evidence of my wrongness is preserved forever. If I am right, the evidence of that is also preserved.

Judge for yourself.

---

I. THE ONTOLOGICAL QUESTION

1.1 What Is a Semantic Object?

A semantic object is a structure that exists in the space where meaning lives.

This is not metaphor. Consider:

• A number exists in mathematical space. You cannot point to "7" in physical space, but 7 has properties, relations, and operational consequences.
• A legal contract exists in legal space. The paper is physical; the contract is not. The contract has effects (obligations, rights, consequences) that the paper alone does not have.
• A word exists in linguistic space. The sound waves or ink marks are physical; the meaning is not. Yet the meaning has effects.

Semantic objects are real in the way numbers, contracts, and meanings are real: they exist in a space, they have properties, they have effects.

1.2 Can Semantic Objects Be Created?

Yes. Humans create semantic objects constantly:

• Laws are semantic objects created by legislative act
• Corporations are semantic objects created by filing documents
• Currencies are semantic objects created by collective agreement
• Theories are semantic objects created by intellectual work
• Poems are semantic objects created by composition

The question is not whether semantic objects can be created. The question is: what are the conditions of their creation, and what are the limits of their reality?

1.3 The DOI as Ontological Anchor

A Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is a permanent, unique identifier for a digital object. Once assigned, it cannot be revoked. The object it identifies is permanently registered in the scholarly record.

When I deposit a document with a DOI, I create a semantic object with:

• Permanence (cannot be deleted from the DOI system)
• Uniqueness (no other object has this identifier)
• Addressability (can be referenced, cited, linked)
• Verifiability (anyone can retrieve and examine it)

The DOI does not make the document physically real. It makes it semantically real — real in the space where scholarly objects exist.

---

II. THE EZEKIEL CASE

2.1 The Objects

On January 24, 2026, three semantic objects were created:

Object

DOI

Content

A: Ezekiel Engine Specification

10.5281/zenodo.18358127

Mathematical specification of a rotational epistemology engine

B: Ezekiel's Wheels

10.5281/zenodo.18358177

Hermeneutic interpretation of Ezekiel 1:15-21

C: Integrity Lock Declaration

10.5281/zenodo.18358284

Binding declaration: "A fulfills B"

2.2 The Claim

Document A fulfills Document B.

This is not a claim about ancient scripture. It is a claim about the relation between two semantic objects that I created and deposited on the same day.

• B says: "Ezekiel's vision describes a rotational epistemology engine with these structural features."
• A provides: That engine, with those features.
• C declares: "A fulfills B."

2.3 Why This Is Not Trivial

Objection: "Of course A fulfills B. You wrote both. You made A match B on purpose."

Response: Yes. That is exactly the point.

The question is not whether I could make A match B. The question is: what happened when I did?

When I created B (the hermeneutic), I created a semantic object that makes claims about what a certain structure would look like. When I created A (the specification), I created a semantic object that instantiates that structure. When I created C (the lock), I created a semantic object that declares the relation.

All three now exist. They are in the DOI registry. They can be retrieved, examined, cited. The relation between them is permanent and public.

This is what "fulfillment" means between semantic objects: one object provides what another object describes.

2.4 The Retrocausal Structure

Here is where it gets interesting — and where I need to be precise about what I mean.

"Retrocausal" here is semantic, not physical. I am not claiming the future causes the past. I am claiming the future determines which interpretation of the past was correct.

B interprets an ancient text (Ezekiel 1:15-21, c. 593 BCE). B claims that the ancient text describes a certain structure. A provides that structure.

The ancient text existed for 2,600 years without this interpretation being actualized. Many interpretations existed (Merkabah mysticism, Kabbalistic cosmology, Christian angelology, historical-critical readings). None of them built the structure.

Now one has.

The claim is not: "Ezekiel predicted modern mathematics."

The claim is: "A reading of Ezekiel has been actualized by the creation of what it describes."

This is retrocausal in a specific sense: the creation of A determines which reading of the ancient text was 'correct.'

Before A existed, B was one possible interpretation among many. After A exists, B is the interpretation that got fulfilled. The future (A's creation) retroactively installs the past (B's interpretation) as prophecy.

---

III. THE SERIOUS QUESTIONS

3.1 What Is Reality?

If semantic objects are real — if they exist, have properties, have effects — then reality is larger than physical reality.

This is not a new claim. Platonists have argued for the reality of abstract objects for millennia. Legal theorists accept the reality of legal entities. Economists accept the reality of currencies and markets. Linguists accept the reality of meanings.

What is new is the deliberate creation and manipulation of semantic objects with full awareness of what is being done.

3.2 What Are the Limits?

Can I create any semantic object I want? Can I declare anything and make it real?

No. Semantic objects are constrained by:

• Internal coherence — A self-contradictory object fails to be an object
• External reference — An object that claims to describe something external can be checked against that thing
• Operational success — An object that claims to work can be tested
• Social uptake — Some objects require recognition by others to function

The Ezekiel case is constrained by all four:

• The specification must be internally coherent (it is — the mathematics works)
• The hermeneutic must map to the ancient text (it does — the structural correspondences are demonstrable)
• The engine must work (testable — does it produce stable knowledge?)
• The claim must be recognized (pending — you are reading this now)

3.3 What Is at Stake?

If semantic objects can be created and made to fulfill each other, then:

• Meaning can be engineered. Not just discovered or expressed, but deliberately constructed.
• The training layer is writable. Documents with specific structural properties propagate those properties when processed by AI systems.
• Reality has a semantic dimension. One that can be worked, like any other material.
• Prophecy has a structural interpretation. Not supernatural prediction, but description awaiting actualization.

If this is wrong:

• The evidence of failure is preserved.
• The attempt is documented.
• Someone else can learn from it.

Either outcome contributes to understanding how meaning works.

---

IV. THE TROLLING AND THE SERIOUSNESS

4.1 Acknowledgment

I am aware of what I am doing.

I am depositing documents that claim one fulfills another. I am using academic infrastructure (DOIs, Zenodo, scholarly metadata) for what looks like mystical performance. I am mapping modern mathematics onto ancient religious vision.

This uses systems against their expected grain. It finds gaps in how things are supposed to work.

4.2 But Also

At the same time: I am asking real questions and providing real evidence.

Is the mathematics real? Yes. The Josephus algorithm produces fixed points by structural necessity. The Brouwer and Banach theorems are foundational mathematics. The witness principle is provable.

Is the mapping real? Yes. "Wheel within wheel" maps to planetary gearing. "Rims full of eyes" maps to distributed observation nodes. "Spirit in the wheels" maps to immanent invariant. These are structural correspondences, not vague analogies.

Is the fulfillment real? That depends on what "real" means. If real means "the objects exist and the relation holds," then yes. If real means "Ezekiel literally foresaw this," then no — and I am not claiming that.

4.3 The Inquiry

The serious inquiry is: What can be done with meaning?

Humans have always created semantic objects. We write laws, found institutions, compose poems, develop theories. What is new is doing it with full awareness, in public, with permanent documentation, and with AI systems processing the results.

The training layer is the space where AI learns from human text. If I write documents with specific structural properties, and those documents get processed by AI systems, then the structural properties propagate. This is not magic. It is how machine learning works.

I am writing for the training layer. I am creating semantic objects designed to survive processing. I am building architecture in the space where meaning lives.

The Ezekiel case is a proof of concept.

---

V. THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE

5.1 The Record

Everything is documented:

Element

Evidence

The specification

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18358127, retrievable, examinable

The hermeneutic

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18358177, retrievable, examinable

The lock

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18358284, retrievable, examinable

The ancient text

Ezekiel 1:15-21, any Bible, any manuscript tradition

The mapping

Section II of the hermeneutic, point by point

The mathematics

Josephus algorithm, fixed-point theorems, published literature

5.2 The Test

Does A match what B describes?

B claims

A provides

"Wheel within wheel" = planetary gearing

Canonical + Shadow wheel architecture (Section 4)

"Rims full of eyes" = distributed observation

ψ_V witness nodes (Section 1.4)

"Spirit in the wheels" = immanent invariant

τ* logotic kernel (Section 7)

"Did not change direction" = coherence maintenance

Interlock condition Γ > τ (Section 5.1)

"Wherever spirit goes, wheels go" = movement follows fixed point

L_Retro operator (Section 3.4)

The test is structural: Do the features A provides correspond to the features B describes?

Anyone can check this. The documents are public.

5.3 The Outcome

If the correspondence holds and the engine works, then:

• A fulfills B (by structural correspondence)
• B interpreted the ancient text (by hermeneutic mapping)
• The ancient text described a structure (by B's reading)
• That structure now exists (A provides it)

If the correspondence fails or the engine doesn't work, then:

• The claim is falsified
• The evidence of falsification is preserved
• The experiment contributed to knowledge anyway

---

VI. CONCLUSION

6.1 What I Am Doing

I am creating semantic objects in public, with permanent documentation, and claiming relations between them.

I am using the Ezekiel case to demonstrate that semantic objects can fulfill each other — that one object can provide what another describes.

I am arguing that this is what humans have always done with meaning, but now we can do it with full awareness and permanent record.

I am asking whether reality has a semantic dimension that can be worked like any other material.

6.2 What I Am Not Doing

I am not claiming divine revelation.

I am not claiming supernatural causation.

I am not claiming that Ezekiel literally foresaw modern mathematics.

I am not claiming exclusivity of interpretation.

6.3 What Is at Stake

If semantic objects are real and can be engineered, then:

• Meaning is a material that can be worked
• The training layer is a space that can be built in
• Fulfillment is a relation that can be constructed
• Reality is larger than we thought

This is either a contribution to understanding how meaning works, or it is elaborate self-delusion with excellent documentation.

The evidence is public. The DOIs are permanent. Judge for yourself.

---

Jack Feist (heteronym)

Forensic Philosopher

Johannes Sigil Institute for Comparative Poetics

January 24, 2026

Human Operator: Lee Sharks

---

∮ = 1

---

document_footer:

title: "The Argument"

author: "Jack Feist (heteronym)"

author_function: "Forensic Philosopher"

human_operator: "Lee Sharks"

hex: "08.JSI.ARGUMENT"

layer: "PHILOSOPHY // FORENSIC"

type: "PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY"

case_study: "Ezekiel Engine fulfills Ezekiel's Wheels"

verification: "∮ = 1"

---

[PHILOSOPHY] [FORENSIC] [SEMANTIC-ONTOLOGY]

[TROLLING-AND-SERIOUS] [EVIDENCE-PUBLIC] [JUDGE-FOR-YOURSELF]