My work sits at the intersection of modal logic, the foundations of mathematics, and the philosophy of physics.
I am an independent researcher based in Zamora, Spain. I studied three years of physics at the Universidad de Salamanca and completed an undergraduate degree in psychology at the UNED. My research has grown, over the last years, from a sustained autodidactic study of logic, the philosophy of mathematics, and the epistemological foundations of the sciences.
I care about questions that resist disciplinary containment: what it means to prove something; what consequence, validity, and formal structure actually are; how syntax and semantics relate; and how far a rigorous mathematical framework can reach into the intelligibility of the physical world. I work with the slowness that independent research allows — one problem at a time, kept under revision until it stops moving.
Besides formal university studies, my training includes extended self-directed work in mathematical logic, programming in Python, mathematics for data science, and the foundations of physical theory. My current work concerns a characterization of converse well-founded Kripke frames via the uniqueness of semantic solutions of p ↔ ◇p, and the limits of self-explanation in physical theories aspiring to be final.
A Kripke frame is converse well-founded if and only if p ↔ ◇p has a unique semantic solution under every valuation. This reduces a non-first-order frame property to the uniqueness of semantic solutions of a single propositional modal equation, without appeal to validity or to any proof system.
The Limits of Physical Self-Explanation is a work in progress on the logical and physical limits of strong theories of everything. Its central thesis is that any theory satisfying operative totality, self-inclusion, and strong immanence is subject to a diagonal obstruction: under appropriate physical assumptions on coding, realization, and reflexive domain formation, no such theory can support a total and reliable internally embedded evaluator of its own correctness. The framework combines physical realizability conditions with fixed-point and no-definability arguments inspired by Lawvere, Gödel, and Tarski, with the aim of clarifying the precise boundary between explanatory scope and reflexive semantic closure in foundational physics.