Physics Without Divinity: 3 Conservation as Relational Persistence

From Eternal Guarantees to Processual Continuity

Conservation laws are often treated as eternal decrees: energy, momentum, charge can never be created or destroyed. Physics presents them as providential guarantees — invisible guardians that secure the cosmos against loss or rupture.

But conservation is not divine providence. It is the trace of how processes hold together across perspectives. Persistence is relational, not absolute. Energy is not a substance that is “kept safe”; it is a relational measure, a way of tracking transformations without remainder. Momentum is not an untouchable essence; it is the consistency of interaction when potentials actualise in symmetry.

What appears as conservation is the resonance of relational alignment. Symmetries constrain how processes can unfold, and within those constraints, potentials persist as patterned possibilities. There is no external guarantor, no metaphysical safeguard. Only relation, maintaining itself through unfolding actualisation.

Seen this way, conservation shifts from being an eternal guarantee to being the continuity of relation. It is not law imposed from outside but persistence enacted from within — a weaving that holds as long as processes continue to coordinate.

The cosmos does not need providence. It only needs relation.

Physics Without Divinity: 2 Coordination of Matter — Beyond Obedience

From Following Rules to Relational Alignment

Physics often imagines matter as passive: a mute substance that “follows” instructions. Equations dictate, particles comply. The picture is one of obedience — nature as a vast congregation of things disciplined into perfect submission.

But nothing in relation obeys. Processes do not “follow orders”; they coordinate. What looks like compliance is in fact mutual alignment, potentials actualising in concert. When we see a pendulum swing, or a photon bend, we are not watching inert matter submit to law. We are witnessing processes interlock: forces, masses, energies, potentials entwined in relational movement.

To speak of obedience is to miss the vitality of relation. Coordination is never absolute; it depends on conditions, scales, and perspectives. At times alignment persists, giving the appearance of universal order. At other times, it shifts or breaks down, revealing contingency where obedience had been assumed.

Matter is not a servant of law. It is the ongoing choreography of relation, actualising in ways that are patterned, but never decreed. Physics need not invoke obedience; it need only see that regularity is the form coordination takes when viewed across the weave of possibility.

Physics Without Divinity: 1 Constraint without Commandment

Law as Relational Regularity

Physics still speaks the language of command. To call something a “law” is to borrow from the old imagination of decree — a world ordered by commandment, sustained by obedience. Gravity “demands,” particles “must” behave, systems “obey” equations. Even stripped of theological clothing, the metaphor persists: nature is a governed realm, order a matter of command.

But relation has no sovereign. Regularities are not decrees imposed from above, but stabilities that emerge within the ongoing dance of processes. To name a “law of nature” is to describe a pattern of coordination, a constraint visible when potentials actualise together. The regularity is not absolute; it is perspectival, holding only within the conditions where that relational configuration persists.

Constraint, then, is not commandment but possibility’s contour. It is the edge that channels how potential may actualise, the boundary that gives shape to process. What physics calls “law” is nothing more — and nothing less — than the regularity of relation: not a statute written into the cosmos, but a rhythm that emerges wherever processes intertwine.

Physics Without Divinity: A Relational Ontology of Constraint and Possibility

If the first series traced the hidden gods of physics, this second series asks: what remains when we clear them away?

Physics need not be theology in disguise. But to free it from divine residue, we must reconstrue its concepts not as decrees, commandments, or eternal truths, but as perspectival cuts within a relational process.

This series reframes the same terrains explored in Theology in Physics, but from a different angle:

• Law without Commandment — not cosmic decrees, but relational constraints that emerge in interaction.

• Creation without Genesis — not ex nihilo, but unfolding actualisations of potential.

• Transcendence without Divinity — not timeless absolutes, but perspectival positions within processes.

• Metaphysics without Substance — not inert particles or immutable constants, but patterned constraints that hold only in relation.

Where physics sought eternal laws, relational ontology sees constraints that actualise within shifting contexts. Where physics invokes beginnings and endings, relational ontology sees cuts in the flow of potential. Where physics projects timeless truths, relational ontology finds perspectival alignments.

Physics Without Divinity is not a rejection of physics, but a refusal of its hidden theology. It is an invitation to see physics otherwise: as a practice of mapping possibility and constraint within the becoming of relation.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Series Conclusion — Physics as Secular Theology

Thesis: Physics, when it exceeds its practice of measurement and modelling, often functions as a secularised theology: importing metaphors, structures, and aspirations inherited from religious cosmology.

Observation: Across its narratives, physics invokes law, creation, eternity, infinity, and finality. These concepts are not neutral; they carry theological residues. Laws resemble divine decrees. Conservation mimics providence. Cosmological beginnings and endings echo Genesis and eschatology. Symmetry and unification parallel sacred order. The quest for final theory mirrors the quest for God.

Analysis: These traces are not incidental. They reveal how physics, in its conceptual scaffolding, inherits the metaphysical grammar of theology. Where theology spoke of divine command, physics speaks of natural law. Where theology posited creation, physics posits the Big Bang. Where theology longed for eternity, physics pursues timeless truth. The same metaphysical shapes persist, only secularised and naturalised.

Implication: This theological shadow matters. It risks disguising contingency as necessity, relational emergence as cosmic order, and human projection as objective truth. Physics becomes not merely a science of measurement, but an unwitting church of hidden gods, preserving metaphysical residues in the guise of explanation.

Conclusion: Recognising physics as secular theology is not to dismiss its technical achievements, but to clarify its conceptual inheritance. A relational ontology allows us to see laws, constants, and symmetries not as divine surrogates but as descriptions of emergent pattern. By bringing these residues to light, we open the way for physics to disentangle itself from its theological past and to embrace a world grounded in relation, contingency, and actualisation.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 16 — Final Theories and the Quest for God

Thesis: The search for a “Theory of Everything” or ultimate unifying framework often mirrors theological ambition: a desire for a singular, all-encompassing principle akin to God.

Observation: Physicists pursue unified models — string theory, loop quantum gravity, grand unification — framed as potentially revealing the “final laws of nature.” Language such as “ultimate,” “complete,” or “final theory” evokes metaphysical totality, suggesting that reality can be captured exhaustively in formalism.

Analysis: Conceptually, this mirrors theological aspiration: the universe is imagined as fully knowable, reducible to a singular principle, and coherent under a single authority. Relational emergence, perspectival actualisation, and contingent interplay are subordinated to the quest for closure. Physics, in this pursuit, projects divine totality onto formal abstraction, subtly preserving metaphysical desire in secular garb.

Implication: Treating final theories as attainable or even meaningful ontologically risks foreclosing relational openness, reinforcing metaphysical assumptions of perfection, necessity, and completeness. Theological residues shape both expectation and interpretation, encouraging the illusion that the cosmos is fully capturable and predetermined.

Conclusion: A relational perspective reframes final theories as tools for modelling patterns, not as ultimate truths. Recognising the theological residue in the quest for unity allows physics to embrace contingent, processual, perspectival actualisation, moving from metaphysical ambition to relational understanding.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 15 — Symmetry and Sacred Order

Thesis: Symmetry principles in physics often function as secularised notions of cosmic perfection, echoing theological ideas of divine order.

Observation: Laws of physics frequently rely on symmetry — invariance under transformation, conservation arising from Noether’s theorem, and symmetry-breaking in particle physics. Symmetry is described as “fundamental,” “beautiful,” or “perfect,” language that parallels theological admiration for cosmic harmony.

Analysis: Conceptually, symmetry serves as a theological trace: the universe is imagined as pre-ordered, balanced, and aesthetically harmonious. Relational processes and perspectival actualisation are subordinated to an overarching ideal of perfection. The language of “elegance” and “beauty” in theory selection reinforces a quasi-religious valuation, implying that nature conforms to humanly apprehensible order.

Implication: By treating symmetry as sacred, physics risks privileging form over process, interpreting relational patterns as manifestations of a preordained aesthetic. This subtly embeds a metaphysical hierarchy: underlying order becomes an end in itself rather than a relational product of interacting phenomena.

Conclusion: A relational perspective treats symmetry as emergent from interactions, not as evidence of cosmic perfection. Recognising the theological residue in symmetry principles allows physics to focus on relational actualisation, rather than on abstracted ideals projected onto nature.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 14 — Cosmological Constants as Deity Substitutes

Thesis: Cosmological constants, most notably Λ (the cosmological constant), are often treated as fixed, finely-tuned quantities, functioning as secular analogues of divine regulation rather than relational descriptors.

Observation: Λ is introduced to account for cosmic acceleration. Its small but nonzero value is often described as “mysteriously precise” or “carefully balanced.” Texts and popular accounts sometimes anthropomorphize it metaphorically, suggesting a regulating principle inherent in the fabric of the cosmos.

Analysis: Conceptually, this mirrors theological thinking: the constant acts as a placeholder for a guiding hand, an unseen agent ensuring cosmic coherence. Relational actualisation — the interplay of matter, energy, and spacetime — is eclipsed by the impression of a predetermined calibration. The constant functions as a deity substitute, filling the explanatory gap with apparent purpose.

Implication: Treating Λ as a metaphysical regulator obscures emergent dynamics and relational contingency. It encourages reading cosmic phenomena as outcomes of preordained balance, rather than as interdependent processes producing patterns. The theological residue subtly shapes both interpretation and expectation.

Conclusion: A relational approach interprets Λ as a descriptor of pattern arising from process, not as an ontological agent. Recognising its theological shadow allows physics to reclaim focus on actualisation within relational dynamics, rather than on an imposed or implied cosmic overseer.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 13 — Teleology in the Laws

Thesis: Fundamental laws are often framed as if they guide the universe toward specific outcomes, subtly importing teleological reasoning reminiscent of divine purpose.

Observation: Physicists frequently describe natural laws in terms that suggest directionality: systems “tend” toward equilibrium, symmetry “enforces” structure, constants “allow” life. Even in formal mathematics, language and explanatory narratives imply an end-directed quality.

Analysis: Conceptually, this mirrors theological teleology: laws are treated as purposeful, guiding the cosmos toward a preordained configuration. Relational processes — contingent interactions and emergent actualisations — are subordinated to an implied cosmic intent. Physics thereby embeds a residual purposefulness, cloaked in the guise of scientific law.

Implication: By framing laws teleologically, physics obscures contingency and relational emergence. Observed regularities are read as outcomes of cosmic intention rather than as patterns arising from interdependent processes. This reinforces a subtle divine shadow, shaping expectations and interpretations of phenomena.

Conclusion: A relational approach reframes laws as descriptive of emergent patterns, not as guiding intentions. Recognising teleological residue clarifies that actuality unfolds from relational dynamics, not from imposed or intrinsic purpose.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 12 — The Singularity as God-Analogue

Thesis: Black hole and cosmological singularities are often treated as metaphysical endpoints, functioning as secular analogues of divine omnipotence and ultimate mystery.

Observation: Singularities are regions where classical physics breaks down, and quantities such as density and curvature approach infinity. Popular accounts describe them as “points of ultimate collapse” or “where the laws of physics cease to exist,” imbuing them with a quasi-mystical aura.

Analysis: Conceptually, singularities mirror theological constructs: ultimate authority, incomprehensible power, and transcendence beyond normal reality. They serve as ontological placeholders for the limits of human knowledge and for the idea of a governing principle beyond relational processes. The relational dynamics that could contextualise such phenomena are masked by the projection of awe and absoluteness.

Implication: Treating singularities as god-like endpoints reinforces a metaphysical hierarchy and distracts from the emergent, processual nature of reality. It encourages imagining boundaries and absolutes rather than exploring how potential actualises within relational dynamics.

Conclusion: A relational approach reframes singularities as limits of models, not ultimate entities. Recognising the theological residue in singularity discourse allows physics to recover processual understanding, where actuality emerges from relation rather than from an imposed, absolute authority.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 11 — The Multiverse as Pantheon

Thesis: Multiverse proposals often function as secularised pantheons, treating countless universes as independent “divine” realms, echoing theological multiplicity rather than relational cosmology.

Observation: Cosmologists invoke multiple universes to account for fine-tuning, inflationary scenarios, or quantum branching. These universes are often imagined as real, causally disconnected, and ontologically autonomous. Popular explanations frequently anthropomorphise them metaphorically, describing each as a “world” with its own “laws” or “constants.”

Analysis: Conceptually, the multiverse mirrors theological thinking: each universe is a quasi-divine domain, a fully-formed reality, and observers within them are analogous to worshippers. Relational processes that could explain variation and contingency are obscured; independence and totality are assumed. The multiverse becomes a secular pantheon, projecting multiplicity as ontology rather than as a modelling strategy.

Implication: Treating the multiverse as ontologically real reinforces theological residues: transcendence, omnipotence, and purpose are reassigned to abstract worlds. Relational emergence is masked, and actuality in our universe is interpreted through metaphors of external plenitude rather than interdependent processes.

Conclusion: A relational reading treats multiverse constructs as conceptual tools, not divine realms. Recognising the theological residue in multiverse thinking allows physics to reclaim the focus on actualisation within relational processes, rather than projecting multiplicity as metaphysical authority.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 10 — Providence and Probability

Thesis: Physics often interprets probabilistic regularities as if they reflect providential ordering, subtly importing theological reasoning into stochastic processes.

Observation: Quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and cosmology describe chance events and probability distributions, yet popular accounts sometimes frame outcomes as “finely balanced” or “miraculously likely.” Even when presented mathematically, the narrative often implies that probabilities are purposeful — that the cosmos ensures certain outcomes, echoing divine foresight.

Analysis: This framing mirrors theological thought: the universe appears as if guided by a provident hand, even when formalism only describes statistical tendencies. Relational actualisation is obscured; events are interpreted as if orchestrated rather than emergent from interacting processes. Probabilities become secularised divine decrees, assigning intentionality to inherently contingent processes.

Implication: Treating probability as providential masks the relational dynamics of actuality. It encourages teleological interpretation and suppresses awareness of perspectival emergence. Contingency and process are subordinated to a narrative of cosmic guidance.

Conclusion: A relational approach treats probability as descriptive of patterns in relational processes, not as evidence of cosmic purpose. Recognising the theological residue in probabilistic reasoning clarifies that actualisation unfolds through contingent interaction, not providential orchestration.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 9 — Infinity and the Divine

Thesis: Physics often treats infinities — in space, time, or quantity — as ontologically real, echoing theological conceptions of the infinite as a divine attribute rather than relational or perspectival constructs.

Observation: Cosmology invokes infinite universes, eternal time, or unbounded space. Quantum field theory and singularities produce mathematical infinities that are sometimes interpreted as physically real. Language frequently reinforces this: the universe is “boundless,” “endless,” or “eternal,” projecting metaphysical weight onto abstract constructs.

Analysis: Conceptually, this mirrors theological thinking: the infinite becomes an expression of ultimate being, echoing divine omnipresence or omniscience. Relational actualisation is bypassed; the infinite is treated as given, not generated through interacting processes. Physics, in embracing infinities, inadvertently smuggles a theological template into cosmology.

Implication: By reifying infinity, physics conflates abstraction with reality, masking contingency, perspectival limits, and processual emergence. This sustains the illusion of absolute plenitude, distracting from the relational unfolding that actually structures the cosmos.

Conclusion: A relational perspective treats infinities as conceptual tools, not ontological absolutes. Recognising the theological residue in our treatment of the infinite clarifies that what appears boundless is an emergent property of relational processes, not a cosmic imperative.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 8 — Eternal Laws

Thesis: Physics often treats fundamental laws as eternal and immutable, echoing theological conceptions of divine timelessness rather than relationally emergent regularities.

Observation: From Newtonian mechanics to modern quantum field theory, laws are framed as universal and unchanging. Texts and lectures routinely describe them as “timeless truths” or “absolute principles,” with no reference to context, contingent emergence, or perspectival framing.

Analysis: Conceptually, this mirrors theological ideas of divine eternity. The laws are imagined as existing beyond space and time, issuing a kind of cosmic decree. Relational processes are masked; the focus is on immutable rules rather than contingent, perspectival actualisations. This projects a sacred permanence onto the mathematical scaffolding, conflating model with reality.

Implication: By treating laws as eternal, physics risks suppressing the relational and processual nature of reality. Actualisation of potential appears subordinated to pre-existing mandates, obscuring how relational dynamics generate regularities. Theological residue here subtly enforces a universe governed by timeless authority rather than emergent interaction.

Conclusion: A relational reading recasts laws as descriptions of stable patterns arising from process, not as eternal imperatives. Recognising the theological shadow in the conception of eternal laws allows physics to reclaim contingency, relational emergence, and perspectival actualisation.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 7 — The Absolute Observer

Thesis: Physics often presumes an absolute perspective — an external vantage point from which reality is fully knowable — echoing theological notions of omniscience and transcendence.

Observation: Classical mechanics, general relativity, and even some interpretations of quantum mechanics often assume or imply a “God’s-eye view”: a complete, detached observer able to measure, describe, and predict the universe in its entirety. Language like “the universe from outside,” or “complete state of the system,” reinforces this assumption.

Analysis: Conceptually, the absolute observer mirrors divine omniscience. Relationality and perspectival cuts are elided: phenomena are treated as if they exist fully prior to interaction or measurement. The framework privileges external totality over embedded, interdependent processes, embedding theological residues in the very architecture of explanation.

Implication: By assuming an absolute vantage, physics risks conflating epistemology with ontology: knowing the system “completely” is mistaken for the system’s actual being. This suppresses the perspectival emergence of actuality and obscures how potential manifests within relational processes.

Conclusion: A relational ontology replaces the absolute observer with embedded, perspectival observers, acknowledging that reality unfolds through interdependent processes. Recognising the theological residue of omniscience allows physics to focus on actualisation within relation, rather than on an external, all-seeing viewpoint.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 6 — Fine-Tuning as Design

Thesis: The anthropic principle and fine-tuning arguments in cosmology often echo theological reasoning, framing the universe as if calibrated for life rather than emergent from relational processes.

Observation: Cosmologists frequently note that certain constants and parameters lie within narrow ranges compatible with life. Explanations sometimes appeal to the improbability of these values, implying that the universe is “designed” to support observers, or that a multiverse is invoked to account for the apparent precision.

Analysis: This reasoning mirrors a theological logic: the cosmos appears intentional, structured for a specific purpose, even if formal law replaces God as the agent. Relational dynamics — how constants, symmetries, and interactions co-emerge — are downplayed in favor of a narrative of preordained calibration. Fine-tuning functions as a secularised teleology, projecting purpose onto contingent relations.

Implication: By framing fine-tuning as design, physics subtly reinstates metaphysical intentionality. Potentialities are overshadowed by the appearance of predestination, and relational actualisation becomes subordinate to anthropocentric narrative. This reinforces the theological shadow already present in laws, matter, and cosmogenesis.

Conclusion: A relational perspective treats fine-tuning not as evidence of design but as an emergent property of interacting processes. Recognising the theological residue in fine-tuning arguments allows physics to reclaim contingency, emergence, and perspectival potential, grounding explanation in relation rather than teleology.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 5 — Cosmic Beginning, Cosmic End

Thesis: Cosmology often frames the universe with implicit eschatology, echoing theological concerns with origins and ends rather than focusing on relational processes and emergent dynamics.

Observation: From the Big Bang to heat death scenarios or “final theories,” physics regularly invokes narratives of a definite beginning and a definitive end. Terms like “initial conditions,” “cosmic destiny,” or “ultimate fate” carry metaphoric weight, suggesting that the cosmos has a teleological arc reminiscent of creation and apocalypse.

Analysis: This narrative mirrors theological thought: the universe is conceived as a story with a God-like beginning and a closure in the far future. Relational actualisation — the ongoing interplay of potential and actual in time — is obscured. Physics, in emphasizing endpoints, often forecloses the ontological openness inherent in processes themselves, projecting a temporal hierarchy where none is necessary.

Implication: By framing cosmology in terms of beginnings and ends, physics imports eschatological thinking that distorts the understanding of emergent processes. It shifts focus from contingent, ongoing relational dynamics to preordained temporal milestones, reinforcing a theology-like narrative structure.

Conclusion: A relational ontology reframes cosmology as continuous unfolding, where potential actualises through perspectival cuts, and “beginnings” or “ends” are features of models, not cosmic mandates. Recognising eschatological residue allows a shift from destiny-bound narratives to processual openness.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 4 — Ex Nihilo: Creation from Nothing

Thesis: Cosmological models often evoke the theological notion of creation ex nihilo, treating the universe’s origin as a singular, miraculous act rather than a relational unfolding.

Observation: The Big Bang is framed as a “beginning of everything,” emerging from a singularity with no prior conditions. Popular accounts and some scientific discourse describe it in language reminiscent of divine creation: from nothing, all existence suddenly appears, setting the stage for the cosmos.

Analysis: This framing imports a theological narrative into physics. The singularity functions as a secularised God, an ontological placeholder for ultimate origin. Relational processes preceding or surrounding the event are elided, and the universe is represented as if its being depends on a miraculous initiation, not on contingent, interdependent dynamics.

Implication: By conceptualising the universe’s origin as an ex nihilo event, physics imports a metaphysical crutch. The actualisation of potential in the cosmos is masked, and the relational, processual nature of reality is subordinated to a “first cause” narrative. This encourages ontological amnesia, making us forget that laws, constants, and processes themselves emerge from patterns of relation.

Conclusion: A relational reading reframes cosmogenesis as the unfolding of potential across interdependent processes. Recognising the theological residue of ex nihilo creation allows physics to shift focus from miraculous beginnings to contingent, relational emergence.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 3 — Providence of Conservation

Thesis: Conservation laws are often framed in physics with the aura of providential guarantee, reflecting a theological residue of eternal oversight rather than relational bookkeeping.

Observation: Energy, momentum, and charge are said to be “conserved,” treated as timeless, inviolable truths. Textbooks and lectures routinely describe these as universal, absolute, and binding, with language suggesting inherent foresight or ordering in nature itself.

Analysis: Conceptually, framing conservation as providential parallels theological thought: the universe is governed by constants that preserve balance, echoing divine care or supervision. Relational actualisation is obscured; the focus is on eternal, unbroken continuity rather than contingent processes. The world is imagined as metaphysically secured, rather than as emergent from interdependent processes.

Implication: This theological trace constrains ontology. By naturalising conservation as universal law, physics inadvertently suppresses relational contingency and downplays the role of perspective and context in actualisation. Processes are perceived as preordained rather than co-constructed.

Conclusion: A relational reframing treats conservation as descriptive of relations and patterns, not as a guarantor of cosmic order. Recognising the providential residue in conservation laws is essential to dislodge theological assumptions and reveal the participatory, contingent nature of reality.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 2 — Obedience of Matter

Thesis: Physics often portrays matter as inherently obedient, implicitly echoing theological notions of creatures bound to divine law rather than relational participants in process.

Observation: In classical mechanics, particles follow precise trajectories; in field theory, excitations evolve predictably. Even in quantum mechanics, while indeterminacy exists, systems are treated as if they “respond” faithfully to laws, with no agency or relational nuance. Language reinforces this: matter “acts,” “flows,” or “follows” the dictates of formal laws.

Analysis: Treating matter as obedient recapitulates theological hierarchies: the world is composed of passive objects, awaiting direction from higher-order principles. Relational processes, contextual actualisation, and perspectival variability are obscured. By personifying matter as a passive executor of cosmic law, physics preserves a subtle metaphysical structure akin to servitude under command.

Implication: This framing suppresses inquiry into how relations actualise in context. If matter is assumed obedient by default, questions about contingency, emergence, and relational dependence are bypassed. The ontology implied is rigid and hierarchical, not relational and participatory.

Conclusion: Recognising matter as a relational participant rather than an obedient subject allows physics to shed its theological residue. Processes are not commands to be followed, but interactions to be understood. This is a critical step toward a perspectival, relational ontology.

Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination Part 1 — Law as Cosmic Decree

Thesis: Physics often treats “laws of nature” as immutable commands, echoing theological conceptions of divine legislation rather than describing relational regularities.

Observation: From Newton’s Principia to contemporary formulations of fundamental physics, laws are written in the form of unbreakable rules: gravity “acts,” energy is “conserved,” symmetries are “obligatory.” These formulations suggest that reality is bound by commands issued ex nihilo, echoing a divine legislator who imposes order on chaos.

Analysis: Conceptually, framing laws as prescriptive rather than descriptive transforms ontology into theology. Matter and energy are no longer relational processes; they are obedient subjects to an external decree. Even when formalism is purely mathematical, the metaphoric language and explanatory culture in physics perpetuate this theological residue.

Implication: This framing is not neutral. It naturalises the idea of immutable, universal authority, discouraging reflection on relational foundations. When laws are treated as commands, the actualisation of potential in context — the perspectival emergence of phenomena — is elided in favour of fixed decree. This is an ontological misplacement disguised as scientific necessity.

Conclusion: By tracing the theological shadow in the language and conceptualisation of physical laws, we can see how physics inherits, without acknowledging, a mode of thought rooted in divine command. The first step toward a relational ontology is to recognise law as description of relations, not a cosmic edict.

Welcome to The Becoming of Possibility

Reality is not a static substance, a container, or a set of immutable laws. Reality is relation in process, constantly unfolding. What we call “actuality” emerges from the perspectival cut between potential and actual, and the patterns we observe in physics, cosmology, or human thought are instantiations of this relational dance.

This blog is a dedicated exploration of that ontological framework. Here, we:

1. Expose hidden structures — tracing where physics, philosophy, and even theology conceal, misplace, or overcommit ontology.

2. Critique distortions — showing when formalism, abstraction, or metaphor is mistaken for reality.

3. Articulate relational alternatives — demonstrating how processes, relations, and perspectival actualisations form a more faithful account of being.

Our first two series lay the groundwork:

• Theology in Physics: Hidden Gods of the Scientific Imagination — excavating the theological residues smuggled into modern physics, from cosmic beginnings to “laws of nature.”

• Physics Without Divinity: A Relational Ontology of Constraint and Possibility — reconstructing these same phenomena through a relational, perspectival lens.

Future series will expand this methodology across science, myth, and meaning, probing where disciplines obscure relation or project ontological authority. The aim is not to replace physics or theology, but to reframe them: showing how reality unfolds as a play of potential and actual, rather than as the edifice of fixed entities or divine decrees.

The Becoming of Possibility is a space to observe, critique, and co-individuate the processes that generate our world — a blog for thinkers who want to see beyond frames, abstractions, and assumptions, and engage with the relational pulse at the heart of reality.