Physics is traditionally framed as the study of universal laws: immutable rules that govern the behaviour of independently existing objects. Conservation of energy, symmetries, invariants — these are often treated as pre-existing constraints of reality itself.
Relational ontology offers a radically different interpretation: laws are not discovered truths about objects; they are construals of structured possibility. They describe patterns of relational actualisation, not pre-given behaviours of independently existing entities.
Patterns, Not Commands
Consider the law of conservation of momentum:
-
Classical view: Objects carry momentum intrinsically, and interactions preserve it.
-
Relational view: Momentum emerges as a repeatable pattern of relational cuts.
-
Interactions stabilise certain distinctions across a horizon of possibilities.
-
The “law” is an observed regularity, arising from constraints that allow certain cuts to persist while precluding others.
-
Laws are therefore descriptive patterns of actualised possibilities, intelligible only relationally.
Symmetries as Relational Stabilisation
Symmetries — rotational, translational, or gauge — are central to modern physics. Relationally:
-
Symmetries are horizons of invariance: structures within which distinctions can stabilise without contradiction.
-
They do not dictate behaviour; they describe compatibility conditions for actualisation.
-
The apparent universality of symmetries is a consequence of the regularities of relational constraints, not pre-existing absolutes.
Thus, symmetries are construals of consistent potentialities, not metaphysical rules.
Conservation Laws as Relational Consequence
Conservation laws emerge naturally:
-
Constraints define what can co-actualise across a system.
-
Certain quantities remain stable because relational cuts select compatible patterns repeatedly.
-
Observed conservation is the stabilisation of relational potential, intelligible only within the horizon that defines it.
In other words, laws codify recurring patterns of possibility, not inherent attributes of things.
Implications for Physics
-
Predictive power remains intact: Relational construals allow precise calculation and expectation of outcomes.
-
No need for metaphysical objects: Laws operate on possibility fields, not independently existing entities.
-
Emergence is fundamental: Regularities emerge from constraints and repeated actualisation, not from pre-existing rules.
-
Horizons are dynamic: As relational contexts change, patterns stabilise differently, allowing novel “laws” to emerge in new domains.
Examples Across Domains
-
Classical mechanics: Newton’s laws are effective descriptions of repeated relational patterns among bodies.
-
Quantum mechanics: Conservation rules arise from stabilised correlations across entangled horizons.
-
Cosmology: Invariants such as the speed of light are construals of horizon-consistent possibilities, not intrinsic limits imposed on pre-existing space or matter.
In every case, the actualised regularity is intelligible relationally, not as a property of independent objects.
Connection to Previous Posts
-
Objects are relational patterns, not pre-given entities (Post 1).
-
Entanglement and co-individuation illustrate how correlations stabilise across horizons (Post 2).
-
Temporal asymmetry and becoming show how actualisations create directionality (Post 3).
-
Spatial order emerges from constraints, not containers (Post 4).
Laws, then, are the emergent regularities of these relational processes.
Conclusion
Physical laws are construals, not commandments of an external universe:
-
They describe patterns of relational actualisation.
-
Symmetries and invariants are stabilised regularities, not pre-existing absolutes.
-
Horizons, constraints, and cuts give rise to both phenomena and law-like behaviour.
In the next post, “Perspectival Physics in Practice”, we will see how this framework illuminates real physical phenomena and thought experiments, demonstrating how relational thinking transforms our understanding of the physical world.
No comments:
Post a Comment