METAVERSE AND METATHEORY

Ohirko Igor; Usenko Yana

doi:10.69635/mssl.2025.1.1.19

Authors

Ohirko Igor Professor, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Institute of Printing and Media Technologies, Lviv Polytechnic National University, Senior Researcher of the Laboratory, Scientific Laboratory of Immersive Technologies and Law, Research Center for Digital Transformation and Law, State Scientific Institution Institute of Information, Security and Law of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1651-3612
Usenko Yana Head of the Personnel Department of the Organizational Support Department of the Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court of the Apparatus of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine, Ukraine Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1438-1337

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.69635/mssl.2025.1.1.19

Keywords:

Metaverse, Digital Identity, Avatar, Electronic Jurisdiction, Metatheory, Metamathematics, Metalogic, Axiomatics, Semantics (Model Theory), Interoperability, Metaanalysis, Human Rights in Digital Environments

Abstract

The article outlines the conceptual and methodological foundations of understanding the metaverse as a sociotechnical infrastructure of the "embodied internet", which intertwines the practices of virtual and augmented reality with the services of the physical world. The focus is on the issues of digital identity, agency, and responsibility, as well as the attachment of law and order to events in the virtual environment (electronic jurisdiction).

Methodologically, the work is based on a metatheoretical approach. Metatheory is considered as a "level of the second order", which explores the structure, methods and boundaries of application of subject theories, analyzes the rules for the creation of knowledge — axiomatics, derivation schemes, criteria of correctness, completeness and consistency, as well as the conditions for introducing new concepts and procedures for their operationalization. It provides definitional clarity, consistency and reproducibility of knowledge.

The article clarifies the content of the metaverse: from the "virtual world" to an interoperable infrastructure with persistent user identity, portability of digital assets, and agreed access and moderation procedures (policy-as-code). It is shown that such a framework provides grounds for combining technical standards (data exchange, interoperability of protocols) with human rights guarantees (privacy, non-discrimination, appealability).

References

Ritterbusch, G., & Teichmann, M. (2023). Defining the Metaverse: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Access, 11, 12368-12377. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3241809.

Mourtzis, D., Panopoulos, N., Angelopoulos, J., Wang, B., & Wang, L. (2022). Human centric platforms for personalized value creation in metaverse. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.11.004.

Kostenko O. Problems of legal regulation of the metaverse // Modern science: innovations and prospects. Proceedings of the 5th International scientific and practical conference. SSPG Publish. Stockholm, Sweden. 2022. Pp. 729-734. URL: https://sciconf.com.ua/v-mezhdunarodnaya-nauchno-prakticheskaya-konferentsiya-modern-science-innovations-and-prospects-6-8-fevralya-2022-goda-stokgolm-shvetsiya-arhiv/

Kostenko, O. V. (2022). Electronic Jurisdiction, Metaverse, Artificial Intelligence, Digital Personality, Digital Avatar, Neural Networks: Theory, Practice, Perspective. World Science. № 1(73). pp. 25-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31435/rsglobal_ws/30012022/7751.

Kostenko, O., Furashev, V., Zhuravlov, D. & Dniprov, O. (2022). Genesis of Legal Regulation Web and the Model of the Electronic Jurisdiction of the Metaverse. Bratislava Law Review, № 6(2), рр. 21-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2022.6.2.316.

Meehl, P. (1992). Cliometric metatheory : the actuarial approach to empirical, history-based philosophy of science. Psychological Reports, 71, 339-467.

Madsen, K. (1970). The languages of science. Theory and Decision, 1, 138-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154003.

Roffé, A. (2019). Reconstructor: a computer program that uses three-valued logics to represent lack of information in empirical scientific contexts. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 30, 68 - 91. https://doi.org/10.1080/11663081.2019.1703467.

Hendra, S. (2020). An analysis of intertheoretical connections in the interdisciplinary field. .

Borsboom, D., Van Der Maas, H., Dalege, J., Kievit, R., & Haig, B. (2021). Theory Construction Methodology: A Practical Framework for Building Theories in Psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16, 756 - 766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620969647.

Mascolo, M. (2020). Inching Toward a Unified Metatheory for Psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 55, 198 - 211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09543-2.

Roffé, A., & Díez, J. (2024). Is it Possible to Empirically Test a Metatheory?. Foundations of Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-024-09938-z.

Overton, W. (2007). A Coherent Metatheory for Dynamic Systems: Relational Organicism-Contextualism. Human Development, 50, 154 - 159. https://doi.org/10.1159/000100944.

Kurth, C. (2022). Metaphysics. Emotion. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429316678-2.

Nolan, D. (2014). Hyperintensional metaphysics. Philosophical Studies, 171, 149-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0251-2.

Moreno, A. (2017). The Nature of Metaphysics. The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review, 30, 109 - 135. https://doi.org/10.1353/THO.1966.0016.

Judson, L. (2023). What Is Aristotle’s Metaphysics About?. Phronesis. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685284-bja10074.

Morganti, M. (2020). Fundamentality in metaphysics and the philosophy of physics. Part I: Metaphysics. Philosophy Compass, 15. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12690.

Arroyo, R. (2021). Making New Tools From the Toolbox of Metaphysics. Erkenntnis, 88, 2251-2257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-021-00444-3.

Shani, I. (2015). Cosmopsychism: A Holistic Approach to the Metaphysics of Experience. Philosophical Papers, 44, 389 - 437. https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2015.1106709.

Holsapple, R. (2025). Metaphysics of Soul, Universal Spirit, and Consciousness. International Journal of Jungian Studies. https://doi.org/10.1163/19409060-bja10044.

Lowe, E. (2009). The rationality of metaphysics. Synthese, 178, 99-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9514-z.

Mohrhoff, U. (2020). A QBist Ontology. Foundations of Science, 27, 1253 - 1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-021-09802-4.

Bazaluk, O. (2018). THE ONTOLOGY OF EXISTENCE: THE NEXT PARADIGM. A review of the book "THE IDEA OF THE WORLD: A MULTI-DISCIPLINARY ARGUMENT FOR THE MENTAL NATURE OF REALITY", by Bernardo Kastrup. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research. https://doi.org/10.15802/AMPR.V0I14.151745.

Kozhevnikov, N., & Danilova, V. (2023). Ontological structures of mythology, religion, philosophy, science as stages of universalization in developing the world knowledge. The ivanovo state university bulletin Series "The Humanities". https://doi.org/10.46726/h.2023.2.15.

Glück, J., Bluck, S., & Weststrate, N. (2018). More on the MORE Life Experience Model: What We Have Learned (So Far). The Journal of Value Inquiry, 53, 349 - 370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-018-9661-x.

Andersen, A., Hvidt, E., Huniche, L., Hvidt, N., & Roessler, K. (2021). Why We Suffer? Existential Challenges of Patients With Chronic Illness: A Kierkegaardian Inspired Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678211002439.

Cheung, M., & Vijayakumar, R. (2016). A Guide to Conducting a Meta-Analysis. Neuropsychology Review, 26, 121 - 128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-016-9319-z.

Paul, J., & Barari, M. (2022). Meta‐analysis and traditional systematic literature reviews—What, why, when, where, and how?. Psychology & Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21657.

Shelby, L., & Vaske, J. (2008). Understanding Meta-Analysis: A Review of the Methodological Literature. Leisure Sciences, 30, 110 - 96. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400701881366.

Zhao, S. (1991). Metatheory, Metamethod, Meta-Data-Analysis: What, Why, and How?. Sociological Perspectives, 34, 377 - 390. https://doi.org/10.2307/1389517.

Hedges, L., & Kuyper, A. (2015). Meta-Analysis: Theory. , 272-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.42081-7.

Weinberger, M. (2022). What Is Metaverse? - A Definition Based on Qualitative Meta-Synthesis. Future Internet, 14, 310. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi14110310.

Aswin, B., Kumar, N., Vishnubala, S., Sankar, S., Dhinakaran, D., Mohamed, A., & Faisal, A. (2023). A Research on Metaverse and its Application. 2023 World Conference on Communication & Computing (WCONF), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/WCONF58270.2023.10235216.

Wang, H., Ning, H., Lin, Y., Wang, W., Dhelim, S., Farha, F., Ding, J., & Daneshmand, M. (2023). A Survey on the Metaverse: The State-of-the-Art, Technologies, Applications, and Challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 10, 14671-14688. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2023.3278329.

Yang, L., Xu, Y., & Hui, P. (2024). Framing metaverse identity: A multidimensional framework for governing digital selves. Telecommunications Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2025.102906.

Yang, L., Ni, S., Wang, Y., Yu, A., Lee, J., & Hui, P. (2024). Interoperability of the Metaverse: A Digital Ecosystem Perspective Review. ArXiv, abs/2403.05205. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.05205.

Heath, D. (2022). The Metaverse and how it will revolutionize everything. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 25, 98 - 101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2022.2136927.

Huang, H., Zhang, Q., Li, T., Yang, Q., Yin, Z., Wu, J., Xiong, Z., Zhu, J., Wu, J., & Zheng, Z. (2022). Economic Systems in the Metaverse: Basics, State of the Art, and Challenges. ACM Computing Surveys, 56, 1 - 33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626315.

Hemphill, T. (2023). The ‘Metaverse’ and the challenge of responsible standards development. Journal of Responsible Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2023.2243121.

Yang, L. (2023). Recommendations for metaverse governance based on technical standards. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01750-7.

Liu, T., & Jeong, H. (2024). Human-centric Metrics in Metaverse Evaluation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 68, 1569 - 1570. https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813241261385.

Zhu, H., Hieu, N., Hoang, D., Nguyen, D., & Lin, C. (2023). A Human-Centric Metaverse Enabled by Brain-Computer Interface: A Survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 26, 2120-2145. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2024.3387124.

Zhou, X., Yang, Q., Zheng, X., Liang, W., Wang, K., , J., Pan, Y., & Jin, Q. (2024). Personalized Federated Learning With Model-Contrastive Learning for Multi-Modal User Modeling in Human-Centric Metaverse. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 42, 817-831. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSAC.2023.3345431.

Yang, R., Li, L., Gan, W., Chen, Z., & Qi, Z. (2023). The Human-Centric Metaverse: A Survey. Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543873.3587593.