Constraint and Causation: 2 Dependencies, Not Pushes

If nothing literally pushes, what organises sequences of events? The answer lies not in forces or agents, but in relational dependencies. Every change, every apparent cause-effect chain, is embedded within a network of constraints. These dependencies, not pushes, govern what can and cannot occur.

---

From Linear Causation to Networks of Compatibility

Classical intuition imagines a linear chain: A pushes B, B pushes C, and so on. The relational perspective reframes this:

• Events are nodes in a network.

• Constraints are edges, indicating compatibility, cost, or inhibition.

• Sequence emerges as events actualise along paths where relational costs are minimal.

Example: a row of dominoes. We usually say “A knocks over B.” In reality, the sequence is determined by:

1. The physical spacing and balance of each domino (constraints)

2. The geometrical and gravitational environment (relational context)

3. The minimal re-cutting cost path — the dominoes fall where continuation is least costly

No one domino “pushes” in any metaphysically fundamental sense. What we perceive as causal influence is the pattern of relational dependencies manifesting through minimal-cost paths.

---

Dependency is Directional, Not Forceful

Constraints naturally induce directionality:

• Some sequences are easy (low cost)

• Some are difficult or impossible (high cost)

This explains why we can talk about causes retrospectively without invoking hidden engines: direction arises from architecture, not intervention.

For example:

• Rain follows clouds not because clouds push raindrops, but because the local thermodynamic and gravitational constraints make condensation and descent low-cost re-cuts.

• Neurons fire not because previous neurons “command” them, but because relational thresholds and compatibilities select feasible activations.

Direction is emergent, not imposed.

---

Visualising Dependencies

Imagine a network diagram:

[Event A]───┐
                      ├─> [Event B]───> [Event C]
[Event D]───┘

• Edges represent compatibility and constraint weight

• Events actualise where paths are allowed by the architecture

• No edge “pushes” anything; it merely indicates where continuation is feasible

Causation is then a narrative imposed on these networks, not an ontological force.

---

Why This Matters

1. Removes hidden metaphysical baggage. No need for invisible agents, forces, or efficiency principles.

2. Clarifies explanatory power. We can still explain patterns — even probabilistic or stochastic ones — without invoking pushing or pulling.

3. Prepares the ground for the next inversion: why explanations often travel backwards, and why laws and events are mutually emergent.