Space is conventionally treated as a container: a pre-existing arena in which objects move, interact, and occupy positions. Classical physics assumes absolute coordinates; relativity treats spacetime as a flexible yet still “thing-like” structure. Relational ontology, however, invites a profound rethinking: space is not a container, but a horizon of relational possibilities.
This post explores how spatial order, distance, and locality emerge from constraints and relational cuts, rather than pre-given metrics.
From Container to Horizon
In the classical view:
-
Objects exist independently.
-
Space is the medium in which they are placed.
-
Motion, proximity, and interaction are defined relative to absolute coordinates.
Relationally:
-
What we perceive as space arises from the structuring of possible distinctions between entities or events.
-
There are no pre-existing points; only relational potentials that can be actualised through interactions.
-
A “distance” is a measure of constraint separation within the horizon of possibility, not a metric imposed externally.
Constraints Define Spatial Structure
Space emerges through the interplay of constraints:
-
Adjacency: Entities or events are “close” if their actualisations influence or limit each other’s possible cuts.
-
Separation: Entities are “distant” if their relational constraints are weakly coupled.
-
Topology: The pattern of allowed relations among multiple entities defines the effective spatial configuration.
Thus, what we call spatial order is a pattern of relational potentials stabilised by constraints, not a pre-existing scaffold.
Locality as Emergent Property
Locality — the principle that objects interact primarily with nearby entities — is not fundamental.
-
It is a statistical consequence of relational constraints: strongly coupled elements tend to co-actualise more frequently.
-
“Distance” is a derivative of potential interactions, not a primitive fact.
-
Even in quantum phenomena, apparent nonlocal correlations arise naturally from shared relational horizons rather than violations of spatial law.
Locality, like identity and time, emerges from the structure of the horizon, not from pre-given space.
Examples Across Physics
-
Quantum systems: Entangled particles can appear “nonlocal,” yet this nonlocality reflects shared horizons of potential, not absolute distance violation.
-
Relativity: The curvature of spacetime in general relativity can be interpreted as a dynamic reconfiguration of relational potentials, guiding what distinctions are possible between events.
-
Classical mechanics: Even classical positions and trajectories emerge from constraints imposed by interacting bodies, rather than absolute coordinates.
Across scales, spatial order is relational, contingent, and horizon-dependent.
Relation to Semiotic and Physical Horizons
Space in physics parallels semiotic emergence:
-
Horizons define what distinctions can stabilise.
-
Actualisations of potential create recognisable patterns, whether in meaning or matter.
-
Each new cut reshapes the horizon for subsequent possibilities, ensuring ongoing generativity.
Just as meanings emerge in semiotic fields, so do spatial configurations emerge in relational horizons — structured by possibility, not by pre-existing containers.
Conclusion
Space is intelligible not as a container, but as a horizon of relational potentials:
-
Distances, adjacency, and topology emerge from constraints.
-
Locality is a statistical, emergent property of relational coupling.
-
Horizons evolve dynamically as distinctions actualise, continually reshaping spatial potential.
This reconceptualisation prepares us to understand physical laws themselves as emergent construals, the topic of the next post: “The Laws of Physics as Construals”, where we will explore how symmetries, invariants, and conservation principles arise from structured possibility rather than pre-existing entities.
No comments:
Post a Comment