The Becoming of Possibility: 12/31/25

Wednesday, 31 December 2025

Perspectival Physics: 1 Physics Without Objects

Physics is often presented as the study of things: particles, fields, forces, and spacetime itself. We are told these entities exist independently, awaiting discovery. But relational ontology offers a radically different reading: physical systems do not exist as pre-given objects. Instead, they are horizons of possibility structured by constraints, actualised through perspectival cuts.

This post inaugurates Perspectival Physics by stripping physics down to its relational foundations.

Objects as Conceptual Shortcuts

Consider a particle. Classical intuition treats it as an independent entity: it moves through space, interacts with other particles, and obeys deterministic laws. Yet the more we probe — quantum mechanics, field theory, measurement problems — the less tenable this picture becomes.

From a relational perspective:

The “particle” is a stable pattern of constraints actualised in measurement interactions, not an independently existing thing.
Its properties — position, momentum, spin — exist relative to the horizon of observation.
When we think we are observing a particle, we are witnessing a relational cut actualising a particular possibility.

Objects are therefore practical fictions: shortcuts that allow us to describe patterns in relational fields without implying ontological independence.

Horizons of Possibility in Physics

If objects are fictions, what exists? Horizons of possibility.

A horizon is a relational field: a space of potential actualisations constrained by laws, interactions, and previous instantiations.
Physical phenomena emerge only when a relational cut is made — for instance, a measurement, an interaction, or a boundary condition.
What appears as a stable “thing” is a temporarily crystallised cut in this horizon.

Thus, the focus of physics shifts from entities to the structure and actualisation of possibilities.

Fields and Forces as Relational Patterns

Classical fields — gravitational, electromagnetic, or otherwise — are often treated as substances filling space. Relationally:

Fields are structured possibilities, not material media.
Forces are expressions of relational constraints, not intrinsic pushes or pulls.
Interactions are actualisations of possible relational configurations, realised only when cuts are made.

This perspective preserves the predictive power of physics while removing the metaphysical baggage of objects-as-things.

Measurement as Cut

In quantum mechanics, the role of measurement becomes transparent under relational ontology:

A quantum system is a horizon of possible outcomes.
A measurement is a perspectival cut, stabilising one possibility relative to the measuring context.
The “collapse” of the wavefunction is not an ontological event in a pre-existing reality; it is the actualisation of a cut in a relational field.

What seems paradoxical under traditional interpretations — superposition, entanglement, indeterminacy — is natural when we replace objects with horizons and cuts.

Laws as Constraints

If there are no objects, what about physical laws?

Laws are regularities of relational constraints, not instructions imposed on entities.
Conservation laws, symmetries, and invariants describe patterns of possibility, not fixed behaviours of independent things.
Predictive success arises because constraints guide which cuts can stabilise and repeat; they do not imply pre-existing objects obeying immutable rules.

Physics, then, becomes the study of structured possibility actualised perspectivally, not a catalogue of independent entities.

Implications

Eliminates metaphysical baggage: We no longer need to assume the independent existence of particles or fields.
Clarifies measurement and observation: Apparent paradoxes dissolve when seen as relational actualisations.
Preserves predictive utility: Relational cuts retain all empirical content; we do not sacrifice accuracy.
Opens new conceptual space: Horizons of possibility can be applied analogically across semiotic, biological, and physical domains.

Conclusion

Physics Without Objects reframes the very foundations of physics:

Objects are not discovered; they are stabilised relational patterns.
Fields, forces, and measurements are cuts in structured possibility, intelligible only relationally.
Laws describe constraints on possibility, not immutable behaviours of independently existing entities.

Relational ontology transforms physics into the study of actualised horizons, a domain continuous with semiotic and mathematical emergence.

In the next post, “Entanglement as Co-Individuation”, we will see how relational cuts explain correlations between systems, offering a radically transparent reading of phenomena traditionally described as “spooky” or counterintuitive.

The Semiotics of Emergence: 6 Emergence Without End

In previous posts, we have traced the trajectory of semiotic emergence:

Emergence is not complexity — new meaning arises when constraints allow distinctions to stabilise.
From horizon to grammar — stabilised distinctions form repeatable, intelligible semiotic structures.
Meaning without function — semiotic orders are autonomous; they do not exist “for” anything.
The moment a distinction becomes thinkable — emergence occurs as a relational event in possibility space.
Why new meaning systems feel inevitable — stabilisation rewrites horizons retrospectively, creating the illusion of necessity.

We now arrive at the final insight: semiotic emergence is never complete; it is ongoing and generative.

Horizons Remain Open

Every emergent system crystallises a subset of possibilities within a horizon. But horizons themselves are not static:

Stabilised distinctions reshape the field, opening new cuts that were previously untenable.
Each semiotic system generates conditions for further emergence, often in directions that were unpredictable.
The space of possible distinctions evolves in response to the semiotic orders it contains.

In other words, emergence creates the preconditions for more emergence. Horizons expand even as they constrain.

Constraints Enable, They Do Not Limit

Constraints are often misunderstood as restrictive. In semiotic systems, however:

They make distinctions intelligible by selecting among possibilities.
They allow repeatable patterns to arise and persist.
They generate relational structure, which is the very substrate for new semiotic orders.

Constraints do not fix the future; they shape the conditions under which novelty is possible. Without them, horizons are incoherent; with them, horizons remain generative indefinitely.

The Recursive Nature of Semiotic Systems

Emergence is recursive:

A new distinction emerges and stabilises.
It reshapes the horizon of possibility.
The reshaped horizon permits further distinctions to stabilise.
The cycle repeats, endlessly.

This recursion ensures that no semiotic system is ever final. Each emergent order is a node in a continuing network of possibility, not a terminus.

The Illusion of Closure

Observers often mistake semiotic systems for complete, self-contained entities. Grammars, motifs, and conventions appear “finished” once stabilised.

But this is an epistemic illusion:

Semiotic systems are always embedded in horizons that continue to evolve.
What seems closed today is simply the current configuration of constraints.
Emergence is never truly complete; there is always potential for new distinctions, reorganisations, and orders.

Examples Across Domains

Language: Every linguistic innovation — a new tense, syntactic construction, or lexical borrowing — opens new horizons for further evolution. No language is ever finished.
Cultural motifs: Narrative patterns, artistic forms, and ritual conventions continuously recombine, hybridise, or mutate, creating new semiotic orders.
Digital culture: Memes, digital languages, and platform conventions evolve at high speed, illustrating emergence as an ongoing, generative process.

In each domain, the same principle applies: stabilisation is temporary; emergence is perpetual.

Semiotic Systems as Engines of Possibility

The relational perspective clarifies a subtle but vital point:

Semiotic systems are engines of possibility, not endpoints.

Each order of meaning produces constraints that stabilise some distinctions while allowing others to emerge. The horizon is never fixed. The system is never complete. Meaning, therefore, is always in the process of becoming, continually actualising new possibilities without exhausting them.

Conclusion: The Generativity of Emergence

Emergence Without End closes this series not with a conclusion, but with an opening:

Horizons continue to expand and contract.
Distinctions continue to stabilise and destabilise.
Grammars, motifs, and semiotic orders evolve perpetually, each new form generating conditions for the next.

Emergence is structurally infinite yet contingently actualised, a process that defies teleology, function, and finality.

The story of semiotic systems is not one of completion; it is the ongoing articulation of possibility itself.

In the becoming of meaning, there is never an end. Only horizons awaiting the next cut.

With this post, The Semiotics of Emergence completes its descent from abstract possibility to lived semiotic practice, setting the stage for future explorations of how horizons, cuts, and constraints continue to generate novelty in language, culture, and thought.

The Semiotics of Emergence: 5 Why New Meaning Systems Feel Inevitable After the Fact

Emergence, as we have seen, is a relational and contingent event. A distinction becomes thinkable only when constraints in a horizon of possibility align, stabilising what was previously unstable. Yet once a semiotic system has crystallised, something curious happens: it begins to look inevitable.

This post examines that phenomenon — the retrospective sense of necessity — and explains how emergent systems recast their own past horizons.

The Illusion of Inevitability

Observers, whether participants in a culture or analysts of a semiotic system, often interpret emergent orders as if they had to happen.

A grammatical structure appears “natural.”
A story motif seems timeless.
A digital meme format feels preordained.

In reality, each of these semiotic systems emerged under highly contingent conditions. The seeming inevitability is constructed retrospectively, as the system stabilises and reorganises the field of possibility.

Emergence is always contingent. Recognition as “necessary” is a product of subsequent stabilisation.

Horizons Rewritten by Emergence

When a new semiotic order consolidates:

Previous possibilities are recast:
Alternative cuts that did not stabilise are now invisible or illegible. The horizon looks narrower in hindsight than it was at the time of emergence.
Patterns are retrospectively legible:
Stabilised distinctions create the illusion of predictive structure. Analysts can point to proto-forms and claim inevitability, but these are constructed post facto.
Systemic coherence hides contingency:
Once constraints have stabilised, the system produces recognisable regularities. These regularities make the emergent order seem necessary even though it was contingent when it first arose.

In short, the semiotic system writes its own history. Its apparent inevitability is a consequence of relational stabilisation, not foresight or design.

Examples Across Domains

Language:
English verb tense or syntactic constructions often appear inevitable in retrospect. Yet historical linguistic records reveal multiple competing forms; the eventual system crystallised contingently.
Cultural motifs:
Hero archetypes, narrative formulas, or ritual sequences are often treated as timeless templates. Archaeological or textual evidence shows numerous failed or unstable variations that were never actualised.
Digital phenomena:
Meme grammars, hashtags, or emoji conventions appear natural once widely adopted. In early stages, many variants failed or fizzled, but these silent absences are forgotten once a dominant pattern stabilises.

Across all domains, the same principle holds: emergence is contingent, coherence is retrospective.

Emergence, Recognition, and Legibility

The sense of inevitability also arises because semiotic systems are self-reinforcing:

Once a distinction stabilises, subsequent instantiations reinforce its intelligibility.
Recognition spreads, making alternative cuts less likely to be considered or actualised.
The system’s horizon of possibility narrows around the emergent order, creating the feeling that it had to exist this way.

The semiotic system becomes autopoietic in perception: its own emergence generates the conditions under which it is recognised as natural.

Implications for Analysis

Understanding this illusion has two consequences for semiotic study:

Avoid teleological traps:
Emergent systems do not exist “for” anything, nor do they “have” to exist. Apparent necessity is always constructed retrospectively.
Observe contingency in action:
Historical and relational analysis should focus on the conditions of possibility, not the apparent inevitability.

In other words, we must distinguish the horizon as it existed at emergence from the horizon reconstructed by stabilisation.

Emergence as Retrospective Structure

This is the final analytic insight before the series concludes:

Horizons of possibility generate distinctions.
Constraints stabilise distinctions into semiotic orders.
Once stabilised, the system projects coherence backward, creating the illusion of inevitability.
Emergence is therefore both contingent and historically legible, but never predetermined.

What feels inevitable is always a consequence of relational stabilisation, never a pre-existing necessity.

Looking Ahead

Having clarified why emergent systems seem inevitable after the fact, the series is ready to open outward:

The final post, “Emergence Without End”, will examine the ongoing generativity of semiotic systems.
It will show how horizons, grammars, and constraints continue to produce novelty indefinitely, ensuring that emergence is never complete, never final.

By distinguishing contingency from apparent necessity, we are prepared to see semiotic emergence as a continuous, generative process rather than a static endpoint.