With the Inertia series complete, it is worth pausing to reflect on its relationship to the Gravity series.
Both series share the same relational logic, but they explore different contours of the architecture.
Flat and gradiented availability
Inertia investigates flat relational availability: regions where persistence is cheap, re-cuts resolve compatibly, and patterns reproduce themselves with minimal cost. Here, continuity dominates; change is the exception that requires explanation.
Gravity investigates gradiented relational availability: configurations where relational thickness or incompatibility gradients make some re-cuts more expensive than others. Here, persistence is locally constrained; deviations accumulate; patterns draw surrounding cuts toward thickened regions.
In both cases, what appears as force, motion, or attraction is an emergent property of relational architecture, not a fundamental substance or agent.
Methodological continuity
The same inversions underlie both series:
Foregrounding relational cost over entity-based states
Recasting classical categories (force, inertia, mass, motion) as emergent from constraint architecture
Refusing hidden defaults or privileged configurations
This continuity ensures that the two series are not separate theories but complementary explorations of the same underlying logic.
What the juxtaposition shows
Placing the series side by side allows readers to see:
Persistence and change as a single relational phenomenon, modulated by architecture
Inertia and gravity as two manifestations of the same principle: constraint landscapes, whether flat or gradiented
The explanatory economy of the relational ontology: patterns emerge without invoking hidden substances, laws, or forces
Concluding thought
Together, the Inertia and Gravity series provide a relationally coherent map of persistence, motion, and attraction.
They reveal how the classical intuition of forces and natural states can be replaced by a unified understanding of relational architectures, low- and high-cost re-actualisations, and the emergent patterns they produce.
This is not a replacement of physics, nor a derivation of its laws. It is a clarification of the ontological substrate beneath our explanatory habits, showing how what appears as inertia, motion, or gravity is an outcome of the relational organisation of possibility itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment