Relational Constraints: c, Time, Space, Mass, Energy: Introduction

Physics and metaphysics often treat c, time, space, mass, and energy as fundamental entities, intrinsic properties, or dimensions of the universe. This series challenges that assumption from a relational ontology perspective: these quantities are not things in themselves, but co-constraints that make phenomena possible and persistent across perspective.

---

Purpose of the series

The goal of this mini-series is to:

1. Present c, time, space, mass, and energy not as substances or measures of things-in-the-world, but as structural invariants of relational actualisation.

2. Show how each concept emerges from the requirements of persistence and coherence across cuts, rather than from pre-existing containers or flows.

3. Demonstrate why these concepts always co-arise: their co-occurrence is a necessary relational architecture.

By doing so, the series reframes familiar physical notions as features of relational constraint rather than properties of reality itself.

---

Structure of the series

1. The Prohibition — Why none of these are entities, dimensions, or properties.

2. c as Constraint — The invariant bound on relational co-actualisation.

3. Time & Space — Dual orderings of dependency and incompatibility.

4. Mass & Energy — Measures of resistance to reconstrual and potential actualisation.

5. Why They Co-Arise — Persistence across perspective as the unifying condition.

Each post builds upon the previous one but is self-contained, allowing readers to engage with specific aspects while keeping the systemic argument intact.

---

Reading guidance

• Approach the series as an exploration of architecture, not substance.

• Focus on constraints and co-constraints, rather than on “things” or “flows.”

• Pay attention to relational coherence: the central thread is how phenomena persist across perspectives, not how they exist in a pre-given world.

By the end of the series, readers will see how the familiar constants and quantities of physics can be interpreted as relational invariants, revealing a deeper architecture of possibility and persistence.