In which Relativity ceases to be geometry, and becomes the structured profile of potential-as-readiness that shapes how events can actualise.
1. From Geometry to Readiness
Relativity, both special and general, is normally presented as a theory of spacetime geometry. Lorentz invariance, metric tensors, curvature, and geodesics are treated as features of a four-dimensional manifold that exists prior to and independently of the events that occur “within” it.
From a relational ontology, this picture is backwards.
Nothing exists independently of the cut between system and instance. And nothing “contains” events. Instead:
Events actualise as cuts across a field of readiness — a structured potential comprising both inclination (endogenous push) and ability (exogenous constraint).
Category theory serves as the grammar of this potential. In earlier work, we reconceived categories as the structures governing possible transitions (morphisms) from one potential profile to another.
This gives us the conceptual resources to reinterpret Relativity without reifying geometry, without background spacetime, and without importing representational physics. What emerges is a tight, elegant relational picture: Relativity becomes a theory of how readiness structures condition the actualisation of events.
2. Spacetime Reconceived: A Field of Ability-Conditions
General Relativity says: curvature = gravity.
In a readiness framework, curvature is not geometry; it is:
variation in the exogenous constraints that shape which morphisms can be actualised.
The metric tensor no longer measures distances.
It specifies the coherence-conditions on how readiness can be traversed.
-
Regions of high curvature = strong deformation in ability.
-
Regions of low curvature = ability nearly uniform.
-
Flat spacetime = constraint-structure without deformation.
Thus spacetime is not an object nor a container.
It is the profile of ability within which the system’s inclinations are expressed.
This preserves what Relativity gets right while removing the metaphysical baggage of a geometric substratum.
3. Worldlines: Trails of Morphism Selection
A worldline in GR is the history of a particle.
In relational terms:
A worldline is a path through readiness traced by successive actualisations — a sequence of morphism-selections.
A geodesic then becomes:
the actualisation path of least constraint deformation.
Not “straightest line in curved geometry,”
but “the sequence of events requiring minimal negotiation with exogenous ability.”
The variational principle of Relativity is reinterpreted as a relational minimal-interference principle.
4. Light Cones as Readiness Cones
The light cone is often treated as a geometric boundary in Minkowski space.
But this is a representational residue.
In the readiness view, a light cone expresses:
-
Endogenous invariance of inclination — morphisms related to propagation carry an internal structural invariant (c).
-
Exogenous constraint on morphism selection — no actualisation can violate this invariant.
Thus the light cone is a two-sided readiness profile:
an inclination structure that cannot be overridden
This preserves the causal structure of Relativity, but grounds it in readiness rather than metric geometry.
5. Equivalence Principle: A Construal of Ability
The equivalence between inertial motion and free fall is typically framed geometrically.
But in readiness terms:
Thus the equivalence principle becomes:
A statement about how ability-deformations are construed, not about mystical similarities between gravity and acceleration.
This aligns perfectly with the perspectival nature of instantiation in relational ontology.
6. Lorentz Symmetry: Invariance of Readiness, Not Space
Lorentz transformations are traditionally interpreted as geometric symmetries of spacetime.
In the readiness framework:
They are symmetries of the inclination–ability structure that preserve morphism-selection invariants.
What remains fixed under Lorentz transformation is not spatial–temporal structure, but the relational profile of readiness that conditions actualisation.
This dissolves the metaphysical overinterpretation of Lorentz symmetry while preserving its empirical force.
7. Stress–Energy as Readiness Gradient
The stress–energy tensor in GR is usually construed as “matter and energy causing curvature.”
But in relational terms:
Einstein’s field equation becomes:
The shape of ability (curvature) is jointly determined with the pattern of inclination (stress–energy).
This is a relational coupling of readiness pressures, not a causal interaction between matter and geometry.
8. The Event: Cut Through Readiness
At the heart of relational ontology, the event is never a location or a point in spacetime.
It is:
a morphism-selection — an actualisation cutting across both inclination and ability.
Relativity becomes a theory describing how readiness conditions the selection and chaining of these cuts.
Quantum theory can now be aligned: quantum potential (wavefunction/field) becomes the readiness of micro-systems, while relativistic ability conditions express the global constraints within which those potentials operate.
This constitutes a conceptual bridge between two theories that have long resisted reconciliation.
Conclusion: What This Achieves
Recasting Relativity as readiness:
-
preserves all empirically successful structure;
-
eliminates background geometry;
-
dissolves paradoxes built on representational assumptions;
-
unifies quantum and relativistic domains at the level of relational potential;
-
and integrates seamlessly with the category-theoretic grammar of readiness.
Nothing is lost.
Everything is clarified.
Relativity, after the reorientation, becomes:
A theory of how the readiness field shapes the actualisation of events — not a geometry but a relational potential.
This is a small conceptual shift with enormous consequences.
And in retrospect, it feels almost inevitable.