Having established c as an architectural constraint and time and space as dual orderings, we now turn to mass and energy. In relational terms, neither is an intrinsic property or a substance. Both are measures of how relational cuts interact with the system’s architecture.
Mass as resistance to reconstrual
Mass is commonly treated as an intrinsic property of matter. Here, it is reinterpreted relationally:
Mass quantifies the resistance of a relational configuration to being re-cut.
High mass corresponds to configurations whose potential for alternative actualisations is tightly constrained, making them stable across perspectives.
Low mass corresponds to configurations that are more flexible, easier to reconstrue, and less stable.
Mass is therefore not “stuff,” but a measure of structural persistence: how well a phenomenon maintains identity as it is actualised across multiple cuts.
Energy as intensity of potential actualisation
Energy, similarly, is not a material quantity or substance. It measures the intensity with which alternative cuts are available within a system:
High energy = many nearby cuts are possible, the system is rich in potential actualisations.
Low energy = the system is locally exhausted, with few alternatives available.
Energy conditions what can be actualised next; it does not itself carry meaning or value. It is purely a measure of potential for relational actualisation.
Mass, energy, and relational scaffolding
Mass and energy emerge within the same constraint architecture defined by c, time, and space:
Mass measures resistance to reconstrual along the dependency and incompatibility orderings.
Energy measures density of alternative possible cuts, the intensity of available relational moves.
Both are relational: they depend entirely on the system and the cut, not on intrinsic properties of phenomena.
This relational framing explains familiar physical relationships:
Mass couples to energy because more stable configurations allow for more intensive potential actualisation.
Mass curves relational orderings (analogous to gravity) because resistance to reconstrual reshapes dependency and incompatibility networks.
Next steps
With mass and energy understood relationally, we are ready to complete the series by showing why c, time, space, mass, and energy always co-arise. This final post will demonstrate that their co-occurrence is not coincidental but necessary for the persistence of phenomena across perspectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment