Having displaced force, re‑typed mass, and reconceived curvature, we are now in a position to dissolve motion itself.
This is not a denial of motion as phenomenon. It is a refusal to treat motion as an ontological primitive.
From a relational ontology, nothing moves.
What persists is the patterned re‑actualisation of cuts under constraint.
Why motion cannot be basic
In classical and relativistic frameworks alike, motion is treated as something that happens to an object:
an entity occupies different positions over time,
its trajectory is traced through a background structure,
and laws determine how that trajectory unfolds.
Even when spacetime replaces absolute space, motion remains a traversal of something already laid out.
But we have already refused this picture.
There are no objects that endure independently of their actualisation. There is no space through which anything passes. There are only cuts, and the conditions under which further cuts are possible.
Re‑actualisation, not displacement
A cut is not a point that travels. It is a perspectival actualisation of relational possibility.
Persistence, therefore, cannot mean continued occupancy of a location. It means continued compatibility of successive cuts.
What we call motion is the maintenance of coherence across a sequence of re‑cuts.
Each cut:
depends on prior cuts (time as dependency),
excludes alternative co‑cuts (space as incompatibility),
and is constrained by relational thickening (mass).
No cut moves. Each new cut simply resolves again under constraint.
The role of curvature revisited
In the previous post, curvature was identified with asymmetric permissibility in relational orderings.
Here its effect becomes explicit.
Where curvature is present:
some sequences of re‑cutting remain viable,
others collapse or become unsustainable,
and persistence funnels along narrow bands of compatibility.
A stable trajectory is nothing more than a path of continued re‑actualisability.
This is why motion appears smooth and continuous phenomenally: discontinuous re‑cuts are resolving under highly regular constraint.
Acceleration without force
Acceleration is often taken as the signature of force.
Relationally, acceleration marks a change in the constraint profile governing re‑cuts.
As a configuration enters regions of increased relational thickening:
dependency chains tighten,
incompatibility boundaries sharpen,
and previously viable sequences become inaccessible.
The resulting re‑cuts must resolve differently. Phenomenally, we describe this as acceleration — not because something is being pushed, but because the architecture of permissible re‑actualisation has changed.
Why free fall feels inertial
One of the great insights of relativistic physics is that free fall feels like inertia.
From a relational perspective, this is not mysterious.
In free fall:
re‑cuts resolve along the dominant constraint gradients,
no additional incompatibilities are introduced,
and persistence proceeds with minimal resistance.
Nothing is being acted upon. The sequence is simply following the thickened architecture.
Inertia is not resistance to force. It is resistance to reconstrual.
Motion as a name, not a mechanism
We are now in a position to be precise.
Motion is not a mechanism operating in the world.
It is the name we give to:
the patterned succession of constrained re‑actualisations that preserve phenomenological coherence across perspectives.
Once this is understood, several familiar puzzles dissolve:
how motion occurs without a medium,
how trajectories persist without guidance,
how gravity influences motion without acting.
Nothing is being guided. Nothing is being pulled.
Cuts are simply resolving again, under asymmetric constraint.
Preparing the final turn
With motion dissolved, only one classical notion remains untouched: energy.
If mass is resistance, curvature is asymmetric constraint, and motion is constrained re‑cutting, then energy cannot remain a conserved substance or transferable quantity.
The final post will take up this question:
Post 5 — Energy as Relational Availability.
Only then will the arc close.
For now, we can state the central claim of this post clearly:
Motion does not occur in the world. It is how constrained persistence appears when cuts re‑actualise coherently.
No comments:
Post a Comment