Stability allows relations to be re-encountered. Separability allows them to be decomposed. Neither, on its own, is sufficient for mathematics to do its deepest work.
That work depends on a further presupposition: invariance.
Mathematics does not merely track relations; it tracks what remains the same when relations are transformed. Where nothing survives transformation unchanged, mathematics loses its central organising principle.
Invariance as the heart of formal power
The power of mathematics lies less in calculation than in comparison. Equations, laws, and structures derive their force from identifying sameness across difference.
To mathematise a domain is therefore to assume that:
transformations can be specified without altering the identity of what is transformed,
some relations persist unchanged across those transformations,
sameness can be defined independently of the perspective that reveals it.
These assumptions make it possible to speak of laws, symmetries, conservation, and equivalence classes. They also mark the point at which mathematics begins to overreach.
Transformation without remainder
Invariance presupposes that transformation leaves something untouched.
This is not a trivial requirement. It assumes that:
the system can undergo change without reconstituting itself,
perspective can vary without altering what there is to be seen,
the act of mapping does not participate in the constitution of the mapped.
Where these assumptions hold, invariants emerge naturally. Where they do not, every transformation carries remainder—something that does not survive translation from one construal to another.
Mathematics has no place for remainder.
Invariance and the illusion of objectivity
Invariance is often mistaken for objectivity. What remains unchanged under transformation is taken to reveal what is really there.
From a relational-ontological standpoint, this is a category mistake. Invariance is not a window onto reality independent of perspective. It is the signature of a relation that can be held stable across perspectives.
Objectivity, in this sense, is not the absence of perspective but the successful coordination of many.
Mathematics excels at describing such coordinated regimes. It falters where coordination cannot be extended without distortion.
When transformation alters constitution
There are relational regimes in which transformation does not merely redescribe a system but reconstitutes it. Changing scale, reference frame, or mode of interaction changes what counts as an entity, a boundary, or a relation.
In such regimes, invariance cannot be secured because there is nothing that persists identically across transformations. Each cut brings forth a different phenomenon, not a different view of the same one.
Mathematical formalism here does not converge on deeper invariants. It proliferates competing representations, each tied to a specific construal.
Invariance, law, and necessity
The idea of natural law depends crucially on invariance. A law is what holds regardless of how a system is transformed or observed.
From a relational perspective, this should immediately raise a question: regardless of which transformations?
Every law tacitly specifies a domain of admissible transformations. Outside that domain, necessity evaporates. What remains is not violation but inapplicability.
Mathematical breakdown often occurs precisely at these boundaries—where the transformations we attempt exceed those under which invariance was ever secured.
Invariance is perspectival achievement
As with stability and separability, invariance is not an intrinsic feature of reality. It is a perspectival achievement.
It requires:
a shared agreement on what counts as a transformation,
a stable criterion of sameness,
a relational regime that tolerates abstraction without reconstitution.
Where these conditions cannot be met simultaneously, invariance dissolves.
This does not signal irrationality. It signals that relation has outrun structure.
What invariance tells us about mathematical limits
Invariance marks the outer edge of mathematical reach. Beyond it, relations may still be rich, meaningful, and intelligible—but not formally capturable without remainder.
Mathematics depends on what survives translation. Where nothing survives unchanged, mathematics has nothing to say.
In the next post, I will draw these threads together by examining how stability, separability, and invariance jointly define the space of the mathematically possible—and what kinds of relational becoming necessarily fall outside it.
No comments:
Post a Comment