1. The Strange Authority of Mathematics
When a physical theory encounters a singularity, the failure is almost always attributed to reality rather than to the formal system describing it. The mathematics is assumed to be telling us something profound: that nature itself has become infinite, indeterminate, or broken.
This assumption rests on a deeply ingrained habit—treating mathematical coherence as a proxy for ontological authority.
Relational ontology invites a different diagnosis. The issue is not that mathematics has gone too far, but that it is being asked to see something it is structurally unable to see: the collapse of readiness.
2. What Mathematics Actually Encodes
Mathematics is extraordinarily good at one thing: encoding inclination.
Formal systems specify:
how quantities relate,
how structures transform,
how a system should continue if continuation is possible.
What mathematics does not encode is ability.
It does not ask:
whether the relational conditions for continuation still obtain,
whether differentiation remains possible at the relevant scale,
whether the horizon that made the original construal meaningful has been exhausted.
These questions are ontological and semiotic, not formal. Mathematics proceeds as if readiness were guaranteed.
3. Internal Coherence as False Ontology
Because mathematics is internally coherent, it is often treated as self-justifying. If the equations are consistent, elegant, and derivable, they are taken to describe what must be the case.
This is the seduction of formal necessity.
Internal coherence, however, is a property of a system under its own rules. It does not confer ontological warrant. When coherence is mistaken for authority, inclination hardens into inevitability.
The result is a quiet slide from modelling posture to metaphysical claim.
4. Why Divergence Is the Only Available Signal
When ability collapses—when no further distinctions can be actualised—the formal system does not register this as a stopping condition. It has no representation for “no relational room remains.”
Instead, it continues to apply its rules.
When continuation is demanded without the conditions that make continuation meaningful, mathematics has only one possible response: divergence.
Infinity is not an answer. It is the shape that persistence takes when ability has vanished but inclination has not.
5. Hidden Readiness Assumptions
Many of the most basic assumptions of mathematical physics are, in fact, unacknowledged assumptions about readiness:
Continuity presupposes indefinitely available differentiability.
Differentiability presupposes stable local structure.
Persistence presupposes that horizons do not collapse under iteration.
These are not laws of nature. They are modelling commitments.
When the relational conditions that sustain them fail, mathematics does not revise its assumptions—it drives them to divergence.
6. Why Singularities Appear Where Mathematics Is Strongest
This explains a long-standing puzzle: singularities do not appear at the edges of theory, but at its most powerful core.
Singularities proliferate precisely where formal inclination is allowed to run unchecked by any account of ability.
What appears as ontological depth is, in fact, formal blindness.
7. Reclaiming Mathematics Without Metaphysics
None of this diminishes mathematics.
On the contrary, it restores it to its proper role: a disciplined way of encoding inclination under explicit conditions of applicability.
The error lies not in mathematics, but in forgetting that it is a semiotic system—one that requires readiness to be checked externally, not assumed internally.
8. Orientation to What Comes Next
If mathematics cannot see readiness failure, then the burden falls elsewhere.
The next question is practical and unavoidable:
How might modelling disciplines learn to check readiness before inclination hardens into divergence?
That question marks the transition from diagnosis to practice—and will be the focus of the final post in this series.
Singularities do not testify to the infinitude of nature. They testify to the moment when formal inclination outlives the readiness that once made it meaningful.
No comments:
Post a Comment