Scale Is Not Size: 3 Why Big Doesn’t Explain Small

Having established that micro and macro are relational-density regimes and that emergence requires no levels, we now confront a persistent intuition: that larger structures somehow explain smaller ones. Relational ontology dissolves this assumption.

---

The Fallacy of Top-Down Causation

• Classical thinking imagines:

  • Societies dictate individual behaviour

  • Galaxies constrain atomic motion

  • “Macro” laws govern “micro” phenomena

• Problem: This reintroduces size or hierarchy as explanatory, rather than relational density.

• Reality: Influence is bidirectional, mediated by relational constraints. Big does not inherently explain small; small contributes to the structure of the large.

---

Relational-Density Perspective

Consider a network of nodes:

1. Dense nodes (“macro”)

   • Appear stable

   • Provide constraint and pattern for nearby paths

2. Sparse nodes (“micro”)

   • Rapidly fluctuate

   • Can reorganise dense regions through local actualisations

• Key insight: Influence flows along relational pathways. Apparent top-down causation is often a misreading of the network’s density gradients.

---

Illustrative Examples

1. Physical Systems:

   • Atomic vibrations shape lattice stability.

   • Crystalline structures appear “macro,” but small deviations propagate and can reorganise the whole.

2. Social Systems:

   • Individual innovations can reshape institutional norms.

   • Institutions constrain possibilities, but do not dictate every individual action.

3. Cognitive Systems:

   • Local neural patterns create emergent thoughts.

   • Global brain states appear “macro,” yet micro-level firing sequences can shift entire cognitive patterns.

---

Mutual Constraint, Not Hierarchical Imposition

• Micro and macro co-actualise: each constrains the other in a continuous, relational manner.

• Stability is an emergent property of interaction, not evidence that one scale “explains” the other.

• “Big explains small” is a heuristic illusion arising from perception of density patterns, not an ontological truth.

---

Key Takeaways

1. Bigger is not inherently explanatory: Influence is relational, not size-based.

2. Bidirectional constraint: Micro configurations shape macro patterns; macro patterns modulate micro possibilities.

3. Emergence remains density-driven: The network of constraints, not size, organises outcomes.