The three posts in this series were not written to solve a problem. They were written to make one unavoidable.
Taken together, they trace a quiet but decisive arc within modern physics itself. First, the collapse of description: the recognition that physics does not mirror nature, but articulates what can be said under specific conditions. Second, the birth of the phenomenon: the discovery that observation is not passive, and that phenomena arise only within relational cuts between world and method. Third, the encounter with meaning: the point at which physics becomes aware that its own practice depends on intelligibility it cannot itself ground.
Nothing in that arc required importing an external philosophy. Every step was taken by physics, under pressure from its own success.
That restraint was intentional.
What this series has not claimed
It has not claimed that reality is subjective.
It has not claimed that consciousness creates the world.
It has not claimed that physics is “just language,” or that its results are conventional, negotiable, or arbitrary.
Just as importantly, it has not offered a positive theory of meaning. The series ends at a threshold, not because the problem is insoluble, but because physics alone cannot cross it without changing what it is doing.
That ending is not a failure of nerve. It is a refusal to smuggle in answers under the guise of metaphors, intuitions, or borrowed mysticism.
The shape of the gap
What the series leaves open is not a mystery so much as a structural absence.
Physics has shown us that:
description is not its mode of access,
phenomena are not pre-given objects,
observation is a constitutive cut,
and meaning is indispensable to intelligibility.
What it has not shown us is how meaning operates without becoming a mental property, a value judgement, or a metaphysical substance.
Nor has it given us a way to speak about limits, self-reference, and articulation without collapsing back into either realism or relativism.
The gap, in other words, is not empirical. It is ontological.
Why a reframing is required
At this point, there are two familiar temptations.
The first is to retreat. To declare meaning outside the scope of physics and return to calculation, as though nothing had happened. This preserves technical power at the cost of conceptual honesty.
The second is to leap. To invoke consciousness, information, participation, or emergence as if naming the problem were the same as solving it. This produces rhetoric without clarity.
Both responses fail for the same reason. They treat meaning as something that must be added to physics, rather than something that has been quietly presupposed all along.
What is needed instead is a reframing of the problem itself.
From representation to relation
The series you have just read dismantles a representational picture of physics. What it does not yet supply is a replacement.
That replacement cannot be another ontology of things. It must be an ontology of relations—of how distinctions are drawn, how phenomena are actualised, and how meaning arises as a function of those relations rather than as a property of minds or objects.
Such a reframing does not sit alongside physics as an interpretation. It operates at a different level. It asks what kind of world must be presupposed for physics, as it actually operates, to be possible at all.
What comes next
The next series will take up that task directly.
Rather than treating meaning as an afterthought, it will begin with meaning as relational. Rather than asking how language represents reality, it will ask how realities are actualised through construal. Rather than treating limits as failures, it will treat them as constitutive.
The aim will not be to correct physics, but to articulate the ontological commitments it has already made—without quite admitting it.
This coda marks the transition.
The encounter has done its work. What follows is not an interpretation of physics, but a reframing of possibility itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment