Time is often treated as a pre-existing dimension, a backdrop against which events unfold. Physics textbooks describe arrows of time, entropy, and causality as if they were intrinsic features of the universe. Relational ontology invites a radical rethink: time, like objects, emerges from horizons of possibility and relational cuts.
In this post, we examine temporal asymmetry — the arrow of time — as a structural feature of relational actualisation, not a pre-given flow.
Horizons and the Direction of Becoming
Horizons of possibility are inherently asymmetric:
-
Constraints define what distinctions can stabilise in the present.
-
Each actualisation reshapes the horizon, enabling some future possibilities while precluding others.
-
The “flow” of time is not a backdrop but the continuous reconfiguration of possibility through successive relational cuts.
In other words, becoming is perspectival: time is emergent from the successive actualisation of possibilities within a horizon, not a universal coordinate.
Entropy and Relational Constraint
Entropy, commonly invoked to explain the arrow of time, can be recast relationally:
-
High-entropy states are simply horizons with weakly stabilised distinctions, supporting many possible cuts.
-
Low-entropy states are strongly constrained horizons, where only a few distinctions can stabilise.
-
The “increase” of entropy over time reflects the evolution of the relational horizon as each actualisation reshapes the field of possible subsequent cuts.
Entropy is thus a measure of relational potential, not a law dictating universal progression.
Causality as Emergent Pattern
Traditional causality assumes independently existing entities interact according to fixed laws. Relationally:
-
Causality is a pattern of sequential cuts, stabilising distinctions across horizons.
-
An “effect” is simply a later cut compatible with earlier constraints; it does not propagate through pre-existing objects.
-
The arrow of time is the emergent asymmetry of relational actualisations, not a fundamental property of the universe.
Causality becomes a structural consequence of horizon evolution, intelligible only relationally.
Becoming Without Absolute Time
Two key consequences follow:
-
No absolute clock: Time is relative to the horizon and its constraints. What is “before” or “after” is defined by the relational sequence of cuts.
-
The future is open: Horizons define what may be actualised, not what must. Temporal asymmetry does not dictate inevitability; it structures potential.
Thus, becoming is a contingent, perspectival process, shaped by the stabilisation of distinctions and the evolution of constraints.
Examples in Physics
-
Quantum events: The order of measurements matters not because of absolute time, but because each measurement reconfigures the horizon of possible outcomes.
-
Thermodynamics: Entropy increase is intelligible as the broadening of horizons allowing more distinctions to stabilise, not as a law imposed on pre-existing matter.
-
Cosmology: The expansion of the universe can be seen as a restructuring of relational horizons, producing new possibilities for matter and energy actualisation.
Across scales, temporal asymmetry emerges from relational structure, not intrinsic flow.
Connection to Semiotic and Relational Systems
Time in physics parallels emergence in semiotic systems:
-
Horizons define what distinctions are intelligible.
-
Actualisation is contingent and perspectival.
-
Each new cut reshapes the horizon for subsequent possibilities.
Just as meanings emerge in semiotic space, so do events emerge in physical space — both governed by relational constraints, not absolute substrates.
Conclusion
Temporal asymmetry is not a law of nature; it is a structural feature of relational horizons:
-
Becoming arises from successive relational cuts.
-
Entropy and causality are measures of patterned potential, not absolute properties.
-
Time is perspectival, emergent, and contingent, like meaning itself.
The next post, “Space as Relational Potential”, will extend this reasoning to spatial relations, showing how horizons, constraints, and cuts generate spatial order and locality — again without assuming pre-existing objects or metrics.
No comments:
Post a Comment