In Part I, we argued that dark matter and dark energy arise not from observation but from the ontology that physics presupposes. They are symptoms—patches applied to a representational worldview that cannot see the role of perspective, construal, or relational constitution.
If the universe appears dark, it is because the ontology is opaque to the conditions of its own seeing.
1. System: A Theory of Structured Potential
In relational ontology, a system is not a container and not a world “out there.”
A system is:
a structured potential — a theory of possible actualisations.
It is not “the universe” but a schema of relational constraints within which certain forms of actualisation become possible.
A cosmological model, therefore, is not a representation of an independent universe but a theory of potential construals of large-scale phenomena.
This shift removes the need for:
-
a pre-existing metric,
-
a unique spacetime geometry,
-
an observer-independent gravitational field,
-
a single, fixed notion of “mass distribution.”
Instead, what physics calls “geometry” becomes one way of structuring potential, not a feature of the universe itself.
2. Instance: Actualisation as a Perspectival Cut
In relational ontology:
An instance is not an event in spacetime.It is the perspectival cut that actualises a potential.
This is not a temporal process but a shift in perspective — a transition from system-as-theory-of-potential to phenomenon-as-actualised.
What physics calls “observation” becomes the co-individuation of phenomenon through the observer–system relation.
This reframing has two profound consequences:
-
Phenomena do not disclose an independent world; they actualise relational potentials.A galactic rotation curve is not a sample of mass distribution—it is an actualisation conditioned by the cut between dynamical and geometric construals.
-
There is no privileged, God’s-eye description.Every cosmological phenomenon is perspectival; no single construal dominates all others.
With this in view, “mass deficits” in galaxies become differences between heterogeneous construals, not evidence of missing matter.
3. Construal: Meaning as Constitutive of Phenomenon
This is the pivot point.
In relational ontology:
There is no phenomenon independent of construal.There is only phenomenon-as-construed.
Mainstream physics treats construal as a transparent window; relational ontology treats it as the structure through which the window exists at all.
Consider cosmological redshift:
-
Under the representational ontology, redshift indicates metric expansion.
-
Under relational ontology, redshift is the product of a construal that slices potential in a particular way.
If the construal is treated as ontologically primary, then the acceleration of the expansion is no longer a brute feature of spacetime—it is a feature of the construal.
Dark energy, therefore, is not a mysterious pressure; it is an artefact of treating a construal as an intrinsic property.
4. Reframing the Two Big Cosmological “Problems”
Let us now show how dark matter and dark energy dissolve under these relational commitments.
4.1 Dark Matter: The Clash of Construals
The so-called mass deficit in galaxies arises when two incompatible construals are forced into the same representational ontology:
-
A local dynamical construal (how fast stars orbit).
-
A global geometric construal (the curvature inferred from luminous mass).
Under a representational ontology, both are treated as direct views onto an independent reality, so their mismatch must be resolved by adding invisible mass.
Under relational ontology:
The mismatch is simply a clash between construals that do not share the same system–instance cut.
Dark matter vanishes because the contradiction is reinterpreted as a relational one, not a substantive one.
4.2 Dark Energy: The Reification of a Construal
Dark energy arises when cosmological redshift is treated as an index of an intrinsic, observer-independent stretching of spacetime. The acceleration of this stretching is then a puzzle: something must be causing it.
Relational ontology flips the whole situation:
-
Redshift is not a sample of “metric behaviour,”
-
Metric behaviour is not an intrinsics of spacetime,
-
The metric is a semantic pattern, not a substance.
In other words:
Dark energy is the name physics gives to the consequences of treating its own construals as ontic.
Remove the misidentification, and dark energy evaporates.
5. A Universe Without the Dark
When the system–instance–construal triad is kept coherent, the “dark universe” recedes.
-
There is no invisible mass.
-
There is no mysterious negative pressure.
-
There is no cosmic bookkeeping error.
-
There is no “missing” 95% of reality.
What remains is a universe that never needed to be patched:
a universe whose phenomena are actualisations of relational potentials,not manifestations of hidden substances.
Closing: The Transformation Is Ontological, Not Empirical
And once the ontology changes, the dark universe dissolves.
In Part III, we will sketch what a cosmology looks like when gravity, redshift, structure formation, and large-scale coherence are reframed through a relational lens. It is not a universe filled with invisible fluids — it is a universe that becomes luminous once the representational blindspots are removed.
No comments:
Post a Comment