The Becoming of Possibility: 11/24/25

Monday, 24 November 2025

Introducing the Trilogy: Relational Topology → Semiotics of the Macrocosm → Dynamics of Actualisation

Over the past months, we have explored a conceptual trajectory that moves from relational geometry to cosmic semiotics, and finally to a meta-physics of possibility. This trilogy presents a unified vision: the universe, life, thought, and meaning are not pre-given objects, but patterns of relational potential actualised through perspectival cuts.

Part I: Relational Topology

The first series established the foundational geometry of potential:

Points, lines, surfaces, and topologies are not objects but relations actualised through constraints.
Geometry becomes the language of structured potential, intelligible only in the act of relational actualisation.
This series sets the stage for thinking beyond representationalist metaphysics, showing that form, structure, and continuity arise from relational lattices.

Key insight: Geometry is the expression of relational coherence, not a property of independent objects.

Part II: Semiotics of the Macrocosm

The second series scaled relational thinking to the cosmic domain:

Cosmic phenomena are semiotic patterns, intelligible through observer cuts and relational constraints.
Physical laws, constants, and symmetries are protocols of relational actualisation, not metaphysical givens.
Observers themselves are co-actualisers, participating in the emergence and intelligibility of the universe.
Horizons, singularities, and cosmic expansion are signatures of the limits of coherent actualisation, not independent objects or events.

Key insight: The universe is a nested hierarchy of semiotic layers, where meaning constitutes structure.

Part III: Dynamics of Actualisation

The third series generalised these insights into a meta-physics of possibility:

Collective potentials differentiate into semi-stable patterns through constraint and lattice articulation.
Individuation is a perspectival cline, co-individuated by relational feedback.
Category theory provides a formal language to map the evolution of possibility across domains: objects as potentials, morphisms as constraints, functors as perspectival shifts, and natural transformations as meta-evolutionary dynamics.
Emergence—physical, biological, and conceptual—is the actualisation of structured relational potential, intelligible through categorical formalism.

Key insight: All forms of emergence are expressions of relational potential evolving under constraint, across scales and domains.

The Trilogy as a Coherent Arc

Taken together, the three series form a conceptual progression:

Relational Topology – the geometry of potential.
Semiotics of the Macrocosm – the universe as nested semiotic layers.
Dynamics of Actualisation – the meta-physics of differentiation, individuation, and co-individuation formalised categorically.

This arc demonstrates that meaning, structure, and phenomena are inseparable from the relational potentials that actualise them. Physics, biology, and conceptual systems are not separate realms but manifestations of the same underlying dynamics, intelligible only through the lattice of relational cuts.

Invitation to the Reader

This trilogy is an invitation to reconceive the universe:

To see emergence as structured potential, not mysterious creation.
To understand observers as participants, not spectators.
To embrace category-theoretic formalism as a map, not a rulebook.

In doing so, we begin to glimpse a universe that is coherent, relational, and dynamically actualised—a universe of possibility in the act of becoming.

Physics and Cosmology Through the Relational Cut: A Glossary

Physics is not a catalogue of what exists.

It is a set of high-precision construal practices that stabilise relational potentials into coherent phenomenal architectures.

Different branches correspond to different regimes of stability — ways of slicing relational potential so that patterns behave as if they were governed by objects, fields, trajectories, or probabilistic amplitudes.

This glossary treats every term as a construal-effect, a semiotic artefact, or a metaphenomenal operation. There are no metaphysical objects independent of meaning, no “things” that exist unconstrued.

The glossary is organised in four regimes:

Classical Physics
Relativistic Physics
Quantum Physics
Cosmology

I. CLASSICAL PHYSICS — Stable Patterns and Object Persistence

Classical physics operates where construal stability is high: everyday scales, moderate speeds, low energies. It treats patterned regularities as if they were external objects governed by deterministic rules.

Space: A stable metaphenomenal frame that construes relational distinctions as fixed distances.
Time: A linear ordering schema for changes in phenomena; a conventionally-stabilised sequencing of perspectival cuts.
Object: A semiotic compression of persistent pattern-recognition; a “habit of recognition,” not a metaphysical unit.
Matter: The construal of enduring pattern-consistency across perspectival change.
Energy: A numerical measure of a system’s capacity to undergo patterned transformation.
Momentum: A quantified tendency of a pattern to maintain continuity across sequential cuts.
Force: The representation of relational constraints in a form compatible with the object schema; not a push or pull.
Mass: A measure of pattern-resilience to perspectival reorganisation (inertia).
Work: A semantic linking of force and displacement — a way of codifying change.
Trajectory: A narrative stitching of cuts that construes a pattern as following a continuous path.

II. RELATIVISTIC PHYSICS — When Classical Frames Break

Relativity destabilises the separation of space, time, object, and cause by showing these are not primitive categories but construal-coherences that vary with perspectival structure.

Spacetime: A unified construal architecture stabilising differences and changes within a single geometric schema.
Frame of Reference: A meta-construal defining which cuts and invariances are being stabilised; there is no “view from nowhere.”
Invariance / Covariance: The robustness of relational patterns under transformation of the construal frame.
Speed of Light: A limit-constraint of the construal architecture, marking the boundary of perspectival ordering.
Relativistic Mass: How pattern-resilience changes as the construal frame shifts.
Curvature (of spacetime): A geometric construal of how relational coherence varies; not literal bending.
Geodesic: A path of maximal relational coherence within a chosen construal architecture.
Gravitational Field / Gravity: A mapping of coherence-changes in the relational schema, construed as influence.
Simultaneity: A context-dependent alignment of perspective-cuts; not a universal relation.

III. QUANTUM PHYSICS — Construal Granularity and Limit Behaviour

Quantum mechanics operates at scales where classical continuity collapses. In our ontology, quantum behaviour is the limit behaviour of construal itself.

Quantum State: Structured potential for phenomenological actualisation, not an underlying reality.
Superposition: A non-committed construal; multiple incompatible patterns held open until a cut is applied.
Measurement: A perspectival cut that actualises one construal among many.
Wavefunction: Mathematical expression of potential coherence before perspectival fixing.
Probability Amplitude: A formal weighting of possible construal outcomes; not a physical propensity.
Uncertainty Principle: A constraint on joint construals; incompatible patterns cannot be stabilised simultaneously.
Entanglement: Relational indivisibility across cuts; one pattern cannot be stably drawn without the other.
Nonlocality: A sign that classical spatial construal is inadequate at this resolution.
Observable: A construal-operator defining what can be actualised under a measurement architecture.
Quantum Field: A high-order construal schema whose excitations behave as particles when cut.
Particle (Quantum): A momentary objectification produced by a specific cut.
Vacuum Fluctuation: A way of describing unstable potential within a relational field.
Decoherence: Loss of potential compatibilities as a system is embedded in a higher-stability context.

IV. COSMOLOGY — Large-Scale Construal and Relational Horizons

Cosmology operates at maximal scale. Its terms are often narrative artefacts or limit-conditions imposed by representational habits.

Cosmic Inflation: Retrospective smoothing operation to reconcile large-scale uniformity; not a temporal event.
Dark Matter: Surplus relational structure arising when gravitational coherence is treated as substance-based.
Dark Energy: Constitutive asymmetry stabilising the cut that produces “expansion.”
Horizon Problem: A symptom of treating perspectival distinctions as ontological partitions.
Cosmological Constant: Formal stabiliser repairing the cut of spacetime-as-object.
Baryon Acoustic Oscillations: Structured echoes of cuts imposed on early-universe potential.
Cosmic Microwave Background: Background relational equilibrium projected as quasi-material glow; horizon of construal.
Structure Formation: Retrospective narrative projecting current asymmetries backward.
Multiverse: Maximal objectification of relational potential; reification of unconstrued possibility.
Singularity: Failure mode of object-based construal; signals a cut that cannot be coherently maintained.
Entropy (Cosmological): Bookkeeping of pattern dispersion; price of refusing to treat potential as relational.
Arrow of Time: Asymmetry of construal emerging from ordering cuts.
Cosmic Neutrino Background: Limit pattern required to complete thermodynamic construal symmetry.
Boltzmann Brains: Ghost-image of object realism; self-parody of microstate modelling.
Flatness Problem: Signature of a cut minimising global curvature to stabilise coherence.
Cosmic Acceleration: Artefact of interpreting relational divergence as metric motion.
Baryogenesis: Narrative retrofit reconciling symmetrical potential with asymmetrical actualisation.
Reionisation Epoch: Segmenting of large-scale relational gradients into discrete “epochs.”
Last Scattering Surface: Outermost coherent boundary of observational cut; not a literal surface.
Big Rip / Heat Death / Doom Scenarios: Narrative closures imposed on indefinitely projected cuts.
Quantum Foam: Conceptual turbulence arising from forcing relational geometry through an object-based sieve.
Anthropic Principle: Patch applied when representational cosmology encounters circularity; false reconciliation of meaning and mechanism.

Meta-Glossary Statement

Across classical, relativistic, quantum, and cosmological regimes, physics does not reveal layers of the universe.

It reveals different stabilisation strategies for organising relational potential:

Classical physics: persistence and continuity.
Relativity: invariance across cuts and frames.
Quantum physics: potential under resolution limits.
Cosmology: relational patterns at maximal scale, often as narrative artefacts.

All terms — objects, fields, particles, waves, laws, states, expansion, inflation, dark matter, singularities — are artefacts of perspectival construal, structured potential, and metaphenomenal regularisation.

Nothing exists unconstrued. Physics is not wrong.

It is relationally actualised.

The Relational Ontology: A Statement of the Cut as It Stands

This blog has grown through excursions — Gödel reframed, semiotics before space, the category-theoretic insistence that relation precedes entity.

What follows is not a summary of those paths but a synchronous articulation of the ontology that has emerged through them.

This is the cut as it stands: a system of potential articulated through construal, instantiated as event, and ordered through relation rather than representation.

1. System as Structured Potential

A system is not a collection of things, nor a space populated by entities.

A system is a structured potential — a theory of possible instances.

It is not ontologically prior in a temporal or substantial sense; it is prior only in the direction of the construal.

A system is what a perspective treats as the horizon of its own possible actualisations.

This aligns with the Hallidayan notion of system as a network of choices, but here extended beyond language:

possibility is primary; actuality is a perspectival selection within it.

2. Instantiation as a Perspectival Shift

Instantiation is not an event in time.

It is a shift of perspective, a cut from the system (potential-as-theory) into the instance (actual-as-event).

Nothing “emerges from” the system; nothing “descends into” the instance.

Rather:

the system is the set of potential construals;
the instance is the potential construed as such;
the cut is the shift that distinguishes them.

There is no ontological substance behind the distinction — only the distinction itself.

3. Construal and Phenomenon

All meaning is construal.

There is no phenomenon without construal; no “raw” world waiting to be interpreted.

The phenomenon is construed experience: first-order meaning, an event of systemic potential cut through perspective.

Metaphenomena (explanations, abstractions, analyses) belong to second-order meaning:

ways of construing construal.

There is no route “behind” construal to a more fundamental reality.

The moment you imagine one, you have already construed it.

4. Relation Without Entity

Entities are effects of construal, not the furniture of the universe.

They have no standing apart from the relational cuts that bring them into salience.

In this ontology, relation does not connect things; relation makes things possible.

Category theory is useful here not as a structural model to import, but because it demonstrates, cleanly, that:

identity is a special case of relation,
transformations come first,
“objects” are nodes of relational consistency, not primitive givens.

This does not replace our ontology with category theory; it simply shows that mathematics has already built the kind of relationality we require.

5. Individuation as a Cline of Potential

Individuation is not a process by which a pre-entity becomes itself.

It is the cline between:

the potential of a collective, and
the potential of different individuals within it.

The individual and the collective are not different types of being; they are different orientations across the same structured potential.

Individuation is perspectival, not substantial.

6. Stratification Without Representationalism

The ontology aligns strictly with canonical Hallidayan stratification:

Context (field, tenor, mode)
Semantics
Lexicogrammar
Phonology/graphology

Context is realised by semantics; register is a functional variety of language that realises a situation type.

The two are not conflated.

Crucially, this stratification is not representational.

Semantics does not “represent” context; it actualises potential that construes context in the instance.

Meaning does not mirror reality.

Meaning is the reality of construal.

7. Meaning and Value: Distinct Orders

Biological or social coordination systems (including value systems) are not meaningful.

They have consequences, constraints, affordances — but not semiosis.

Meaning arises only in construal, and construal is a semiotic act.

Value and meaning interact, but they are not the same order of phenomenon.

This distinction is essential.

To blur it is to fall back into representational metaphysics.

8. No Primordial Space, No Primordial Time

Space and time are not backgrounds into which phenomena appear.

They are higher-order metaphenomenal regularities: stable modes for organising construals.

A phenomenon does not “occur in time”; the construal of temporal sequence is a way of stabilising relations among phenomena.

Space is not a container; it is a semiotic schema for patterned difference.

Time is not a flow; it is a mode of ordering perspective.

What comes before space and time is not chaos — but structured potential.

9. The Primacy of the Cut

Everything begins with the cut:

system/instance
potential/actual
perspective/event
construal/phenomenon
individual/collective

The cut is neither an operator nor an entity.

It is a difference instantiated within relational potential.

The cut is not something the ontology describes —

the ontology is the cut described.

10. Reality as the Becoming of Possibility

Reality is not a pre-given world that meaning attempts to map.

Reality is the ongoing construal of structured potential, the event of possibility becoming actual in perspective.

This is why mythos, mathematics, semiotics, logic, and narrative all converge here:

they are different ways of cutting potential into form.

Nothing in this ontology is static.

The system evolves as its instances recursively inform the conditions of further construal.

Reality is not “what is.”

Reality is what becomes possible.

Conclusion

This statement is not a final document.

It is a snapshot of the ontology at this moment — the shape of the structured potential as construed here and now.

Future posts will push the cut in new directions. But this is the centre of gravity.

This is the relational ontology as it currently stands.

III The Evolution of Possibility: 7 Completing the Trilogy: From Cosmology to Possibility

With Series III complete, the trilogy reaches its full conceptual arc. Across the three series, we have built a coherent, relational metaphysics of the universe:

Series I: Cosmology Without Origin

Dissolved the inherited metaphysics of beginnings, first causes, and temporal primacy.
Showed that the universe does not begin; events are cuts, not temporal occurrences.
Prepared the ground for a conceptual inversion, where meaning, not matter or time, is primary.

Series II: Semiotics Before Space

Established that meaning is ontologically constitutive.
Demonstrated that spacetime, matter, and laws are phenomena of relational construal.
Distinguished first-order meaning from metaphenomena, creating a framework for formalising relational potentials.

Series III: The Evolution of Possibility

Explored how potentials differentiate and actualise through perspectival cuts.
Introduced category theory as a formal model of relational potentials, shifts, and transformations.
Developed a metaphysics of evolution, individuation, and co-individuation, culminating in a mythos of possibility.
Showed that patterns, laws, and structures emerge from relational actualisation, making the universe intelligible.

The Trilogy’s Conceptual Arc

From dissolving origin to establishing meaning, to formalising potentials and their evolution, the trilogy forms a progressive scaffold:
- Cosmology → clears metaphysical assumptions.
- Semiotics → establishes the ontological primacy of meaning.
- Possibility → formalises the evolution of structure, law, and intelligibility.

The Becoming of Possibility trilogy thus presents the universe not as matter unfolding in time, but as an evolving field of relational potentials actualised through meaning, intelligible only through the cuts and distinctions that constitute it.

This framework opens new horizons for understanding cosmology, physics, biology, and semiotics, while providing a rigorous metaphysical foundation for exploring the evolution of possibility itself.

III The Evolution of Possibility: 6 Patterns, Laws, and the Mythos of Possibility

Having framed evolution as the differentiation and structuring of relational potentials, we now examine how patterns and laws emerge—and how they form the conceptual “mythos” underpinning the intelligible universe.

Patterns as Actualised Potentials

Patterns arise from repeated actualisations under stable constraints.
They are intelligible, enduring, and lawful because the relational system permits their recurrence.
From galaxies to biological forms to abstract structures, all intelligible regularities are expressions of patterns of possibility.

Laws as Metaphenomena

Laws of physics, mathematics, and social regularities are not substrates of reality.
They are metaphenomena: constraints emerging from the relational structure of potentials.
Stability and persistence in patterns give rise to the appearance of universal laws, but these are expressions of the evolving field of possibility, not external impositions.

The Mythos of Possibility

The universe itself can be understood as a narrative of evolving possibilities, intelligible only through the interplay of potentials, constraints, and actualisations.
This “mythos” unites the trilogy:
- Series I: Dissolves inherited metaphysics of origin.
- Series II: Establishes meaning as ontologically constitutive.
- Series III: Systematises potentials, actualisation, and the evolution of relational structures.
The mythos of possibility reframes cosmology, physics, biology, and semiotics as expressions of evolving relational intelligibility.

Bridge to Conclusion

With patterns, laws, and the mythos of possibility clarified, we are ready for the final post: Post 7: Completing the Trilogy, which summarises the journey from cosmology through semiotics to the systematic evolution of possibility, demonstrating the coherence and power of relational ontology.

III The Evolution of Possibility: 5 The Evolution of Possibility

With differentiation and individuation understood, we can now frame evolution not as a physical process, but as a metaphysics of possibility. The universe unfolds not in time, but in the actualisation and reconfiguration of relational potentials.

Evolution as Relational Process

Potentials differentiate over relational time, not chronological time.
Patterns emerge, persist, or dissolve based on constraints and repeated actualisations.
Stability and intelligibility are products of evolving relational structures, not pre-existing matter.

Co-Individuation and Emergent Structure

Systems do not evolve in isolation.
Co-individuation allows multiple systems to mutually shape the articulation of potentials.
This produces emergent structures, regularities, and laws that are intelligible within the relational network.

From Potential to Persistent Patterns

Repeated actualisations under consistent constraints create stable repertoires.
Laws of physics, biological forms, and social patterns all emerge as resilient patterns of possibility, intelligible across contexts.
Evolution is the continuous differentiation and structuring of potential, producing the cosmos as we perceive it.

Implications

The universe is intelligible because possibilities evolve under relational constraints.
Physical, biological, and semiotic structures are different regimes of the same underlying process.
Possibility itself is the substrate; structure, law, and pattern are its actualised manifestations.

In the next post, we will examine patterns, laws, and the mythos of possibility, connecting these insights to the larger trilogy and the conceptual narrative of relational ontology.

III The Evolution of Possibility: 4 Differentiation and Individuation

With structured potentials formalised and perspectival shifts understood, we can now examine how complexity emerges: how collective potentials differentiate into individual instances, giving rise to the structures we recognise in the universe.

Individuation as a Cline

Individuation is not an atomistic property of a potential.
It is a cline within collective potential, a gradual articulation of relational distinctions.
A “system” becomes intelligible as an individual when its potentials are sufficiently constrained and coherently actualised relative to surrounding potentials.

Patterns of Stability

Stability arises from repeated patterns of actualisation under consistent constraints.
Individuals persist not because they are self-contained, but because their relational patterns are reinforced through successive cuts.
This applies across domains: stars, organisms, social structures, and even ideas are instances of differentiated relational potentials.

Co-Individuation

Multiple systems can co-individuate, actualising potentials mutually.
This interaction produces emergent structure beyond what a single system could generate.
Co-individuation is a relational mechanism of evolution, shaping patterns of intelligibility and the constraints that guide future actualisations.

Preparing for Evolution

Understanding differentiation and individuation sets the stage for the evolution of possibility itself. In the next post, we will explore how potentials evolve, structure stabilises, and the universe develops intelligibility as a dynamic process of relational actualisation.

III The Evolution of Possibility: 3 Category Theory as Formalisation of Potential

Having established that potentials are structured relational systems and actualisation is a perspectival shift, we now introduce a formal framework to model these dynamics: category theory. In relational ontology, category theory is not a mathematical abstraction applied to pre-existing objects; it is a tool for modelling structured potentials and their actualisations.

Categories as Systems of Potential

A category is a network of objects (potentials) and morphisms (relations or constraints between them).
This captures the structured nature of potentials, showing how one potential relates to another and how patterns of actualisation can propagate.
Categories provide a map of intelligibility, not a depiction of temporal events or material substrates.

Functors as Constrained Perspectival Shifts

A functor maps one category (system of potentials) to another, respecting the relational structure.
Functors model perspectival shifts, showing how the same network of potentials can be actualised differently under distinct constraints.
They formalise systematic transformations of relational intelligibility, linking different modes of actualisation.

Natural Transformations as Meta-Operations

Natural transformations describe the relationships between functors themselves.
They capture higher-order operations on construals, allowing us to compare and evolve systems of potentials.
Through natural transformations, we can model co-individuation, evolution of patterns, and the emergence of regularities.

Implications for the Evolution of Possibility

Category theory formalises the structure, actualisation, and transformation of potentials, providing a rigorous lens on relational evolution.
It unites cosmology, biology, and semiotics under a single framework of intelligibility, showing how patterns, laws, and structures emerge naturally from relational potentials.
With this formal apparatus, we are ready to explore differentiation and individuation, the next stage in the evolution of possibility.

III The Evolution of Possibility: 2 Actualisation as Perspectival Shift

Structured potentials form the network of what could be, but actualisation is what makes them intelligible. In relational ontology, actualisation is not a temporal process, nor is it an event that “happens” independently. It is a perspectival shift: a cut through relational potentials that distinguishes one instance from another.

Instances as Perspectival Cuts

Each instance is an actualisation of a subset of potentials, made coherent under specific constraints.
The same network of potentials can yield different instances under different cuts, illustrating the multiplicity inherent in relational systems.
Actualisation is therefore contextual, relational, and perspectival, not chronological.

Implications Across Domains

Cosmology: A “galaxy” is intelligible only as an actualised pattern of relational potentials.
Biology: An organism emerges as a pattern of potentials realised under constraints, not as matter in motion alone.
Semiotics: Meaning arises when relational potentials differentiate under interpretive cuts.

Constraints Shape Actualisation

Actualisation is always mediated by constraints:

Constraints determine which potentials can be realised together.
They generate stable patterns and intelligible regularities.
Repeated actualisations under the same constraints produce persistence, structure, and law-like behaviour.

From Potential to Instance

Understanding actualisation as a perspectival shift prepares the ground for formalisation. In the next post, we will introduce category theory as a way to model relational potentials, their shifts, and the patterns of actualisation, providing a rigorous framework for the evolution of possibility.

III The Evolution of Possibility: 1 Potentials as Structured Relational Systems

Having established that meaning is ontologically primary, we now turn to the mechanics of actualisation: how the universe’s intelligibility emerges from relational potentials. In relational ontology, potentials are not amorphous possibilities. They exist as structured systems, networks of relational connections awaiting perspectival actualisation.

Potentials as Networks

A potential is never isolated. Each is defined by its relations to other potentials, forming a network with constraints, symmetries, and affinities. These networks:

Shape what can be actualised;
Determine the intelligible forms that can emerge;
Enable patterns to persist across successive actualisations.

Thus, potentials are structured relational systems, not latent objects in a container or pre-existing entities in time.

Differentiation as a Cline

Within these systems, potentials differentiate along a continuum, not in discrete jumps. A collective potential may partially actualise in one instance, remain latent in another, or combine with other potentials to form novel structures. Individuation is not atomic; it is a cline within collective potential, dependent on relational context and perspectival cuts.

Patterns as Intelligibility

From these networks, patterns emerge naturally. A stable configuration is a recurring articulation of potentials under constraints. These patterns are intelligible, lawful, and enduring—not because they exist independently, but because the relational system permits their repeated actualisation.

Preparing for Actualisation

Structured potentials are the canvas upon which relational cuts operate. In the next post, we will explore actualisation as perspectival shift, showing how the same network of potentials can yield different intelligible instances depending on the cut applied.

II Semiotics Before Space: 7 Preparing the Ground for the Evolution of Possibility

Series II has shown that the universe is intelligible because it is in semiosis, not the other way around. Spacetime, matter, and physical law are phenomena of construal, actualised through relational cuts guided by patterns of constraint. The cosmos is a field of relational potentials, structured and made intelligible through meaning itself.

From Semiotics to Possibility

With this conceptual foundation, we can now ask: how do potentials differentiate into structured forms? How do networks of relational potential give rise to the stable instances, patterns, and individuals we recognise in the world?

First-order meaning actualises potentials.
Metaphenomena constrain what can be actualised.
The interplay of potentials and constraints produces patterns, structure, and intelligibility.

Preparing for Series III

Series III, The Evolution of Possibility, will formalise these insights into a systematic metaphysics:

Potentials as structured relational systems.
Actualisation as perspectival shift, not temporal process.
Category theory as a tool to model constraints, transformations, and the evolution of relational potentials.
Individuation as a cline within collective potential, rather than an atomistic property.

In short, we are now ready to move from the ontological primacy of meaning to the logic of possibility itself. Series III will explore how relational potentials evolve, differentiate, and stabilise into the structures that make the universe intelligible—and ultimately, how the universe itself can be understood as an evolving field of possibility.

II Semiotics Before Space: 6 The Early Universe as Shifting Constraints

Having distinguished first-order meaning from metaphenomena, we can now reinterpret the so-called “early universe.” In relational ontology, what we call cosmic evolution is not a temporal sequence of events, but a dynamic pattern of constraints shifting within a meaning-system.

Constraints Shape Actualisation

The early universe is intelligible because relational potentials differentiate under shifting constraints.
What appears as expansion, structure formation, or physical law is the articulation of intelligible patterns, not a material process unfolding in pre-existing space-time.
Each “event” in the early cosmos is a perspectival cut revealing a particular configuration of relational potentials.

From Potentials to Patterns

Potentials exist in a continuous field.
Shifting constraints guide which potentials can actualise and how they relate to one another.
The observable universe emerges as a coherent network of first-order meanings, structured by metaphenomena.

Implications

Cosmological history is a story of relational intelligibility, not of matter or energy evolving.
Physical laws, constants, and symmetries reflect patterns of constraint, not intrinsic properties of a substrate.
This perspective fully prepares the conceptual bridge to Series III, where we explore the evolution of possibility itself: how potentials differentiate, how individuals emerge, and how structure becomes stable.

The final post of Series II will summarise these insights and prepare the ground for Series III: The Evolution of Possibility, completing the bridge from semiotics to deep relational metaphysics.

II Semiotics Before Space: 5 First-Order Meaning vs. Metaphenomena

To fully grasp the ontological primacy of meaning, we must distinguish between two layers of intelligibility: first-order meaning and metaphenomena.

First-Order Meaning: Actualised Phenomena

First-order meaning consists of phenomena as they are actualised and intelligible. Galaxies, particles, stars, or even abstract structures such as numbers or laws are instances of relational potential made coherent through cuts. They exist not independently, but as articulated points in a network of intelligibility.

Metaphenomena: Constraints on Construal

Metaphenomena operate at a higher level: they are the constraints and patterns that govern what can be actualised.

Physical laws, cosmological regularities, and mathematical structures are metaphenomena, not substrates.
They shape the field of potentials, guiding the differentiation of first-order instances.
They emerge from the relational system itself, as regularities in patterns of actualisation.

Implications for Cosmology and Beyond

This distinction allows us to see the universe as a field of semiosis:

The “early universe” is intelligible because constraints shift within the meaning-system, not because matter or energy evolve independently.
Patterns of structure, from galaxies to fundamental particles, are first-order meanings arising under the guidance of metaphenomena.
Reality is layered: actualisations appear within a framework of constraints, producing the intelligible cosmos we observe.

In the next post, we will explore the early universe as a system of shifting constraints, reframing cosmological evolution entirely in terms of relational semiosis rather than physical chronology.

II Semiotics Before Space: 4 Meaning as the Primary Condition

If spacetime and phenomena emerge through relational distinction, then the foundation of the universe is meaning itself. Relational ontology places semiosis—the differentiation and articulation of potentials—before what we conventionally call “physical reality.”

The Universe is Intelligible Because It is in Semiosis

The cosmos is not intelligible because matter or energy exist first. It is intelligible because potentials differentiate into actualised instances through relational cuts. Every law, every structure, every observable pattern is a first-order manifestation of meaning, actualised from relational potential.

Physics, Biology, and Other Laws as Regimes of Construal

Physical laws are not the substrate of reality, but descriptions of patterns that emerge when potentials are actualised.
Biological and social systems likewise emerge from relational potentials, intelligible only when observed through the lens of semiosis.
What we call “nature” is a late, specialised regime of relational intelligibility, not the source of meaning itself.

Constraints and Actualisation

Meaning operates through constraints, which structure potentials and determine what can be actualised:

Constraints are the relational logic that shapes intelligibility.
Actualisation is the perspectival instantiation of potentials under these constraints.
Together, they create the patterns we experience as law, order, and structure in the universe.

By placing meaning at the ontological foundation, we prepare for the systematic metaphysics of potential, actualisation, and individuation that Series III will explore. In the next post, we clarify the distinction between first-order meaning and metaphenomena, which underpins the formalisation of relational potentials.

II Semiotics Before Space: 3 Spacetime as a Phenomenon

If phenomena are inseparable from construal, then even spacetime itself is not a pre-existing stage. Relational ontology reveals that space and time are emergent phenomena, intelligible only through the relational distinctions we impose on potentials.

Spacetime as Relational Ordering

“Before” and “after,” here and there—these notions are not intrinsic features of the universe. They are constraints applied to a network of potentials, allowing us to organise and navigate them. Duration, distance, and direction emerge from patterns of relational differentiation, not from a pre-existing temporal or spatial backdrop.

The Relational Fabric

Objects and events are nodes in a network of potentialities, actualised through perspectival cuts.
Spacetime is the pattern of relations between these nodes, not an independent arena.
Temporal and spatial intuitions are tools of intelligibility, enabling a system to articulate relational potentials.

Implications for Cosmology

The “early universe” is not a matter of events unfolding in pre-existing space.
Expansion, evolution, and structure formation are emergent patterns of relational actualisation, intelligible only in the context of relational cuts.
Physical laws and mathematical structures are metaphenomena, constraints that shape what becomes intelligible.

By understanding spacetime as a phenomenon, we see that the universe does not exist independently of relational meaning. It emerges, intelligibly, only through the act of construal itself.

In the next post, we will take this further: meaning itself becomes the ontological foundation, preceding and constituting the phenomena of spacetime and matter.

II Semiotics Before Space: 2 Phenomenon is Construal

If the universe is intelligible because it is actualised through relational perspective, then every phenomenon is inseparable from the act of construal itself. There is no “unconstrued” reality lurking behind appearances; there is only what becomes intelligible through relational differentiation.

Instances as Cuts

Every object, event, or law is an instance of relational potential, actualised through a perspectival cut. A galaxy is not simply “there” in space; it is made intelligible by the relational distinctions that define it. A particle does not exist independently; it is an actualisation of structured possibilities.

This extends beyond physics: even abstract structures, from mathematics to physical laws, are first-order phenomena of relational construal. They exist because they can be made intelligible within the network of potentials.

Reality Emerges Through Actualisation

Reality is not pre-given; it emerges through the process of actualisation. This is not idealism—the universe is not “in our minds”—but a radical relationality in which intelligibility and existence co-arise. What appears as the “universe” is a field of potentialities shaped by perspectival cuts, made coherent through patterns of differentiation.

Implications for Understanding Spacetime and Matter

Spacetime is a phenomenon, not a container.
Matter and energy are intelligible only as actualised potentials.
Laws of nature are descriptions of relational regularities, not prescriptions imposed upon reality.

In the next post, we will explore spacetime itself as a phenomenon, showing how notions of duration, distance, and temporal ordering emerge from relational actualisation rather than existing independently.

II Semiotics Before Space: 1 The Universe as Intelligible Through Relation

In the wake of cosmology without origin, we face a radical question: if the universe does not begin in matter, energy, or time, what grounds its intelligibility? The answer is not in physical substrates but in meaning itself.

Relational ontology reveals that no phenomenon exists unconstrued. Every event, object, or law is intelligible only through the cuts applied to relational potentials. Spacetime itself is a phenomenon, a pattern of relational distinctions, not a stage on which phenomena occur.

Actualisation and Intelligibility

The universe does not exist independently of intelligibility; it exists as intelligible. Its “existence” is always actualised through relational perspectives. A galaxy, a particle, a law of physics—none are present in a vacuum of reality; all are first-order meanings, actualisations of structured potential.

From First-Order Meaning to Metaphenomena

To navigate this, we distinguish two layers:

First-order meaning: the phenomenon as it is actualised and intelligible.
Metaphenomena: the constraints that shape what can be actualised—patterns, regularities, laws.

Cosmology, physics, mathematics, and even our perception of space emerge as metaphenomena—systems of constraints that make relational potentials intelligible.

A Universe in Semiosis

From this perspective, the universe is not a stage with pre-existing objects. It is a network of relational potentials that become intelligible through semiosis. Spacetime, matter, and energy are all phenomena of construal, arising from patterns of relational differentiation.

In Series II, we will follow this thread: from first-order meaning to metaphenomena, from relational potentials to structured constraints, and towards the insight that the universe itself is intelligible because it is in semiosis.