In the previous post, we established the foundational prohibition: c, time, space, mass, and energy cannot be treated as entities, intrinsic properties, or dimensions. We also framed the question relationally: what constraints must be in place for a phenomenon to persist across cuts?
We turn now to c.
c is not a speed
Mainstream physics treats c as “the speed of light.” In a relational ontology, this is a representational trap. c is not something that moves; it does not propagate; it does not exist as a thing.
Rather, c is an architectural constraint:
It sets the maximal rate at which a relational distinction can be co-actualised across perspectives.
It is, in effect, the measure of synchronisation possibility within a system: how quickly one distinction can be actualised without violating the structural integrity of others.
Constraint, not causality
c is often interpreted as causal — the ultimate speed limit. From a relational perspective, this interpretation is backwards. There is no pre-given spacetime in which causes propagate.
Instead, c is structural:
It is a bound on co-actualisation.
It ensures that the ordering of dependency (time) and incompatibility (space) remains coherent.
It applies equally to all phenomena: it is invariant not because it is universal in space or time, but because it is necessary for persistence across any cut.
We can think of it as the logic of coordination made material: if distinctions are actualised faster than c permits, the system cannot maintain identity across perspectives.
c and perspectival shifts
Instantiating a phenomenon is a perspectival shift — a cut. Every cut must satisfy the constraints imposed by c, or the resulting phenomenon cannot be coherently identified as the same across multiple perspectives.
This explains why c appears in every branch of physical description: it is not a property of light or of spacetime, but a requirement for phenomenal continuity under relational actualisation.
Put differently, c marks the architecture of possible synchronisation:
Too slow: distinction spreads without coherence.
Too fast: distinctions collide and cannot co-actualise.
It is neither observed nor measured directly; it is inferred from the persistence of phenomena themselves.
c as the minimal invariant
In relational terms, c is the minimal invariant constraint that permits multiple cuts to be coordinated. It is the backbone of persistence. Nothing else — not mass, energy, space, or time — could maintain coherence if c were unconstrained.
It is architectural, invariant, and systemic:
Architectural, because it structures the system of possible actualisations.
Invariant, because it must apply across all perspectives to maintain identity.
Systemic, because it is a property of the cut-structure, not of any individual phenomenon.
In the next post, we will see how time and space emerge as dual orderings of dependency and incompatibility, and how c fixes the ratio between them. Together, they form the relational scaffolding within which mass and energy can later be understood as measures of resistance and potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment