Constraint and Causation: 1 Why Nothing Pushes

In classical thought, causation is inseparable from motion: something pushes, something is pushed; one event triggers the next. Forces, impulses, and interventions dominate our intuition of how the world unfolds. Yet this is a metaphysical overlay, not an ontological necessity.

From a relational perspective, the real puzzle is not what causes what, but why anything ever changes at all. Causation is often imagined as a literal transfer of activity — a push or a shove across the universe. The relational view inverts this intuition: what we call “cause” is emergent from the architecture of constraint and compatibility, not imposed from outside.

---

The Illusion of Push

Consider a simple example: a falling apple. We say “the apple falls because gravity pulls it.” Implicit in this explanation is a hidden assumption: that there is a force acting independently of the relational context. Yet all the apple’s behaviour is already determined by:

1. The distribution of mass in the surroundings, shaping the local constraint gradient.

2. The relational dependencies between the apple, air, and Earth.

3. The path of least relational cost: the sequence of re-cuts where the pattern persists most cheaply.

Nowhere in this description does a literal push or pull exist. “Gravity” is shorthand for the thickening of constraints in space; “falling” is simply following a path of minimal cost within that architecture.

---

Causation as Retrospective Narrative

The fact that we habitually interpret this as a “cause” is a cognitive artefact. Our brains construct causal narratives to make sense of patterns, retrospectively identifying dependencies. In reality, the sequence unfolds according to relational availability: patterns persist where they can, deviations occur where constraints allow them, and nothing ever actively pushes or commands.

In short:

• Classical causation: agent → effect, push → motion

• Relational causation: compatibility + cost → pattern persistence, re-cutting → apparent effect

The difference is subtle in practice, but radical ontologically. The world does not need agents, pushes, or forces to explain sequences; it only needs architecture.

---

Why This Matters

Recognising that nothing literally pushes has several consequences:

1. It dissolves hidden metaphysical assumptions. We no longer need to posit unobservable forces or ineffable causes.

2. It prepares the ground for a new understanding of dependency. Patterns, constraints, and relational costs become the real explanatory primitives.

3. It sets up a new taxonomy of explanation. Where classical physics talks of cause, we can talk of architecture, availability, and costed re-cutting.