I Cosmology Without Origin: 3 Retrospective Cuts and the Illusion of Sequence

Once we understand the universe as a system of relational potentials, the notion of sequence itself comes into question. What we perceive as temporal order—“before” and “after”—is not a feature of the cosmos, but a construct imposed by our perspective.

Temporalisation as Construal

When cosmologists chart a sequence of events, from the so-called Big Bang to the formation of galaxies, they are describing a retrospective cut through potentiality. These sequences do not exist independently of the cuts we apply. Time is not a river carrying events along its banks; it is a tool of intelligibility, a framework we use to navigate relational structure.

Order as a Conceptual Necessity

Why, then, do we feel compelled to order events? Because our cognition requires anchors. The first event, the second, the third—these are not discoveries about the universe; they are strategies for making sense of potentialities. The “illusion of sequence” emerges from the need to distinguish instances from the continuum of possibility.

Reconsidering Cosmological Narratives

By recognising sequence as perspectival:

• The Big Bang ceases to be a temporal origin.

• Evolution of structure is not a timeline, but a pattern of actualisation.

• Cause and effect are descriptions of relational patterns, not primitive connections.

In this view, cosmology becomes a study of intelligible organisation, not of temporal unfolding. The narrative of “before” and “after” is a map imposed upon potentials, not a reflection of reality itself.

I Cosmology Without Origin: 2 System as Theory of Instance at Cosmic Scale

Having dissolved the illusion of a first event, we must now reorient our thinking to the structure of cosmic potentials themselves. In relational ontology, a “system” is not a collection of things in space or time; it is a theory of instances—a structured set of possibilities awaiting actualisation.

At the cosmic scale, this means the universe is not a container for matter and energy, nor a temporal stage on which events play out. It is a field of relational potentials, intelligible only through the cuts we apply to distinguish and articulate them.

Potential Without Substrate

Consider this: cosmic potentials do not require a substrate. They exist as relational configurations, not as objects embedded in space or matter. Each potential is a structured node of possibility, awaiting conditions under which it can be actualised.

In this framework, the Big Bang is no longer a literal origin. It is a perspectival anchor—a cut through the network of possibilities that allows a system (ours) to articulate itself. It is actualisation, not genesis. The universe does not begin; it becomes intelligible through the application of perspective.

Implications for Cosmology

By treating the universe as a system of potentials:

• “Events” are instances of relational distinction, not temporal happenings.

• “Sequences” emerge from cuts applied to structured potentials, not from inherent chronology.

• “Physical laws” are patterns of intelligibility, not primitive rules imposed upon pre-existing matter.

In short, cosmology can be understood without appealing to beginnings, substrates, or linear causality. We see instead a continuous field of relational potentials, actualised perspectivally, which forms the true canvas of the cosmos.

I Cosmology Without Origin: 1 Dissolving the “First Event”

In much of cosmology, we are trained to ask: what came first? The “first event,” the “uncaused cause,” the Big Bang as literal genesis—these are the questions that dominate our imagination. Yet each of them assumes a metaphysical framework that relational ontology rejects:

• That time exists as a background through which events unfold.

• That causation is a chain linking past to future.

• That “firstness” is a property of something that exists prior to all else.

These assumptions are not mistakes in physics; they are misprojections of representational thinking onto the relational potential of the cosmos.

The first event, when considered without these assumptions, is not temporal, nor is it causal in the usual sense. It is a retrospective perspectival cut: the conceptual anchor we impose on a network of potentials to make it intelligible. The “beginning” emerges not from matter or energy, but from the conditions under which relational potentials can be distinguished and articulated.

Asking what came first is therefore a question about our own construal practices, not about reality. The first event is a feature of perspective, a necessity of intelligibility rather than a property of the universe itself.