The Becoming of Possibility: 02/19/26

Thursday, 19 February 2026

Quantum Cuts: 3 Beyond Relations — The Power of Relational Ontology

In Parts 1 and 2, we traced Quantum Structuralism: the seductive claim that reality is made of relations, not objects. We saw how it destabilises naive object realism, but quietly preserves a hidden substrate, treating structure as ontologically fundamental. Quantum Structuralism replaces objects with structure, but it stops short of the radical cut relational ontology demands.

Here, we make the full move.

1. Relational Ontology: A Quick Refresher

Relational ontology is not about swapping one “thing” for another. It is about reconceptualising reality from the ground up. Its central pillars are:

Systems as theories of potential instances
- A system is never a collection of things “out there.” It is a structured potential: a framework of possibilities that can be perspectivally actualised.
Instantiation as a perspectival cut
- An instance is not the uncovering of a pre-existing object; it is the actualisation of potential from a particular point of view.
Construal as constitutive of phenomenon
- Phenomena are not discovered; they are construed. Meaning arises through the act of construal, not by mapping an independent world.
Phenomenon vs. metaphenomenon
- First-order phenomena: actualised, experienced events.
- Second-order metaphenomena: the system-theory-level structures that describe or generalise patterns in phenomena.
- Quantum mechanics is a metaphenomenal system: one lens among many for describing potential instances.

2. Why Relations Alone Are Not Enough

Quantum Structuralism’s error is subtle but pervasive:

It treats relations as independently real, as if they can float free of perspective.
It assumes a world that exists prior to construal, with structure as the primary furniture.
It freezes instantiation into patterns that are only locally meaningful.

Relational ontology, by contrast:

Sees relations as emergent from perspectival cuts, not as pre-existing entities.
Makes instantiation dynamic, co-constitutive, and perspectival, always depending on potential and actualisation.
Places meaning and semiotic construal at the centre, rather than physical or structural metaphysics.

The difference is profound: Quantum Structuralism gives us a new object myth. Relational ontology dissolves the myth entirely. The difference can be seen schematically below. Quantum Structuralism stops at structure. Relational ontology goes to construal.

3. Advantages of Relational Ontology

No hidden substrate metaphysics
- Nothing exists “out there” independently; everything arises through actualisation and construal.
Universality across domains
- Applies equally to physics, language, social systems, and semiotic phenomena.
Precision and clarity
- Maintains the Hallidayan distinction between potential, instance, and construal.
- Avoids conflating value, meaning, or symbolic systems with physical “structures.”
Dynamic instantiation
- Captures the full cline from potentiality to perspectival actualisation — something structuralism can never fully model.

4. The Takeaway

Quantum mechanics gives us a window onto a world that does not obey classical object metaphysics. But it does not give us the tools to escape substrate thinking.

Relational ontology shows us the full cut: the quantum world is not a collection of structures or relations to be discovered; it is a domain of perspectival potentials actualised through construal.

In short:

Quantum mechanics destabilises the object myth. Relational ontology dissolves the substrate myth.

If you’ve followed the series, you now see why simply swapping “objects” for “relations” is not enough. To truly think relationally is to embrace the perspectival, co-constitutive, and semiotic character of reality itself.

Quantum Cuts: 2 Where Quantum Structuralism Misses the Cut

In Part 1, we introduced Quantum Structuralism — the claim that reality is made of relations, not objects. It destabilises naive object realism, yes, but only up to a point. Beneath its elegant rhetoric, it quietly re-inscribes a classical metaphysical scaffold: a “world-as-it-is” that exists independently of observation, theory, or construal.

Let’s examine where this structure falters.

1. The Silent Substrate

Quantum Structuralism declares relations fundamental, yet it assumes that these relations “attach” to something. This is the hidden substrate: a mind-independent quantum world, populated by particles, fields, or wavefunctions.

The article by George Webster describes quantum behaviour as revealing fundamental patterns.
But “revealing” presumes there is something there to be revealed.
Relational ontology refuses this assumption. There is no substrate to reveal. Only potentialities are structured as theories, and actualisation is perspectival.

The difference is subtle but decisive: Quantum Structuralism replaces objects with structures, whereas relational ontology replaces the substrate itself with construal.

2. Relations vs. Construal

Quantum Structuralism treats relations as entities: “A particle is entangled with another particle; therefore, the relation exists fundamentally.”

Relational ontology reframes this:

Relations are never independent. They exist only in the act of construal — in the perspectival actualisation of a system.
Phenomena are the first-order experience of a construal; metaphenomena are the theory of patterns that describe it.
Quantum mechanics provides one construal of the potential; it does not exhaust the meaning of reality.

In short: what Quantum Structuralism treats as ontologically basic, relational ontology treats as derivative of perspective.

3. Structuralism Cannot Capture the Cline of Instantiation

One of relational ontology’s core insights is that instantiation is a cline between potential and actualisation, not a static pattern in a pre-existing world.

In Quantum Structuralism, particles “have” relations that define them.
In relational ontology, a particle—or any instance—is the perspectival actualisation of potential within a system.
This makes instantiation dynamic, context-sensitive, and always relationally constituted.

Quantum Structuralism, by contrast, freezes instantiation into the structure itself — it mistakes a local pattern for a global ontology.

4. The Advantage of Relational Ontology

Why does this matter? Because relational ontology:

Removes the hidden assumption of a mind-independent world.
Accounts for the perspectival, co-constitutive nature of instantiation.
Maintains a clear distinction between potential, instance, and construal — which Quantum Structuralism collapses into structure.
Provides a generalised framework applicable beyond physics, to language, social systems, and meaning itself.

Quantum mechanics destabilises the object myth. Relational ontology dissolves the substrate myth and shows us the full range of what it means for phenomena to arise.

Next in the series: We will map the fully relational alternative, contrasting it explicitly with the structuralist framework, and show why replacing objects with structures is not enough — the relational cut goes deeper.

Quantum Cuts: 1 Quantum Structuralism — The New Object Myth

We live in an age where quantum mechanics has been enlisted as a philosophical sledgehammer. One of the more seductive claims circulating in popular philosophy — exemplified by George Webster’s recent article on Institute of Art and Ideas — is that the quantum world reveals reality is made of relations, not objects. At first glance, this sounds like a revolutionary step away from classical metaphysics. But is it?

Quantum Structuralism, as we might call it, makes three interlocking claims:

Objects are not fundamental. Electrons, tables, planets — these are mere placeholders in our everyday understanding, not the building blocks of reality.
Relations are primary. What truly exists, the argument goes, is the network of interactions, entanglements, and structural constraints that govern behaviour.
Structure replaces substance. Quantum states, symmetries, and statistical patterns are what really “exist” in the ontological sense.

This framework feels, at a glance, like it resonates with relational thinking. After all, if objects dissolve into relations, haven’t we destabilised naive object realism? Haven’t we finally taken the first step toward understanding the world as fundamentally relational?

Yes — but only partially.

Quantum Structuralism may replace “object” with “structure,” but it leaves in place a silent assumption: something exists independently, to which these relations attach. It assumes a quantum substrate, a mind-independent world of particles and waves, which structure merely arranges. It retains the metaphysical scaffolding it claims to overthrow — the object is gone, but the “world-as-it-is” remains.

Relational ontology makes a sharper cut. It does not merely swap objects for structures. Instead, it reframes the very conditions under which reality becomes meaningful:

Systems are theories of potential instances.
Instantiation is a perspectival cut, not a revelation of a hidden substrate.
Phenomena are construed experiences, not windows into a pre-existing quantum world.
Relations are not “things” at all, but emergent aspects of construal.

In short: Quantum Structuralism destabilises the object myth. Relational ontology dissolves the substrate myth. One hints at relationality; the other redefines reality from the ground up.

In the next post, we will dissect the subtle ways Quantum Structuralism still sneaks back in classical assumptions, and show why a fully relational approach offers conceptual clarity that physics alone cannot.

Relational Cuts: A Concluding Manifesto: After Unification

This series began with a simple provocation:

What if the “quantum–relativity problem” is not a problem in physics, but an artefact of ontology?

Across these posts, we have dismantled several assumptions so deeply embedded in contemporary discourse that they rarely appear as assumptions at all:

that reality must possess a single ontological substrate,
that scale forms a ladder from small to large,
that unification requires depth,
that information is a conserved metaphysical substance,
that inconsistency signals incompleteness of being,
that a final theory must close the system.

None of these commitments are empirically mandated.

They are metaphysical inheritances.

1. What Has Been Replaced

We have not argued for fragmentation.

We have not argued that “anything goes.”

We have replaced substance with constraint.

We have replaced depth with structured potential.

We have replaced unification with coordination.

General relativity and quantum field theory are not rival descriptions of a hidden object.

They are constraint systems generating distinct instance spaces.

The task is not to discover the deeper thing beneath them.

It is to map the relations under which they can co-actualise.

2. The Shift in Ambition

The classical ambition of physics has been metaphysical integration:

Find the smallest constituent.

Find the deepest law.

Find the final equation.

The relational ambition is different:

Articulate structured potentials.
Identify invariants under transformation.
Map compatibility conditions.
Diagnose boundary failures.
Reconfigure constraint where necessary.

This is not a retreat from rigour.

It is a reorientation of rigour.

3. Incompleteness Without Panic

Boundary phenomena — infinities, paradoxes, informational anxiety — need not be read as tears in the fabric of reality.

They are signals.

They mark the limits of coordination under a given cut.

No constraint system exhausts possibility.

No articulation closes the field.

Incompleteness is not an embarrassment.

It is the condition of ongoing articulation.

4. Relation Before Object

If there is a single principle underlying this series, it is this:

Relation precedes object.

Objects are nodes within structured constraint systems.

Information is defined relative to them.

Scale is a perspectival feature of them.

Unification is a special case of compatibility between them.

Once relation is primary, the metaphysical pressure toward finality relaxes.

Not because the world fragments.

But because the demand for a final frame dissolves.

5. What Becomes of the “Theory of Everything”?

Perhaps there will be no theory of everything.

Perhaps there will instead be:

an expanding network of coordinated constraint systems,
linked by structure-preserving mappings,
open at their boundaries,
generative at their points of strain.

The deepest theory would not describe what the world is made of.

It would describe how structured possibilities relate.

And that theory, too, would remain open.

Closing Line

Physics need not culminate in metaphysical closure.

It may instead participate in the ongoing evolution of possibility itself.

And that is not a failure.

It is far more interesting.

Relational Cuts: 7 Incompleteness Without Crisis

If the previous posts are correct, then the “quantum–relativity problem” is not a failure of physics.

It is a failure of expectation.

We expected unity.

We expected depth.

We expected closure.

What we encountered instead were boundaries.

And boundaries, in a depth ontology, feel like defects.

But relationally, boundaries are generative.

1. The Desire for Closure

The search for a theory of everything presupposes that:

reality forms a single, coherent totality,
describable within one internally consistent formal system,
whose scope exhausts all physical phenomena.

This expectation mirrors a deeper intellectual habit: the demand for completeness.

If a formal system works, it must be extendable without limit.

If two systems conflict, there must exist a third that subsumes both.

This is not a physical inference.

It is a metaphysical desire.

2. A Familiar Result

In mathematics, the dream of formal completeness encountered a decisive limit in the work of Kurt Gödel.

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems demonstrated that any sufficiently expressive formal system contains truths that cannot be proven within the system itself.

Consistency and completeness cannot both be secured from within.

The lesson is often treated as tragic.

But it is not tragic.

It is structural.

Formal systems define structured possibility spaces.

No such space can internally exhaust all truths expressible in its language.

Incompleteness is not a flaw.

It is the signature of expressive richness.

3. Physics as Formal System

If we treat general relativity and quantum field theory as constraint systems — formal articulations of structured potential — then we should expect something analogous.

Each system stabilises coherence within its domain.

Each defines invariants and transformation rules.

Each generates instances.

And each encounters boundary phenomena when extended beyond stable coordination.

The expectation that a single, all-encompassing system must exist mirrors the pre-Gödelian belief in total formal closure.

Relationally, this expectation is unwarranted.

4. Boundary as Generative Condition

In previous posts, paradox and divergence were reframed as indicators of failed co-actualisation.

We may now sharpen that claim.

A boundary between constraint systems is not merely a site of breakdown.

It is a site of potential reconfiguration.

When two systems cannot be functorially related under current assumptions, the failure does not imply that reality is inconsistent.

It implies that our mapping schema is incomplete.

The generative move is not to posit a deeper substrate.

It is to articulate a new relational level in which both systems can be seen as partial articulations of a broader structured potential.

This is not reduction.

It is re-articulation.

5. No Final Frame

Category theory already cautions against totalising closure.

There is no category of all categories without paradoxical collapse.

Relational ontology converges with this insight:

There may be no final constraint system that exhausts all possible articulations of physical coherence.

Instead, we have:

structured potentials,
local coordination,
functorial translation,
and boundary-induced reconfiguration.

The dream of ultimate completion is replaced by open-ended articulation.

6. The Evolution of Possibility

If systems are theories of possible instances, and boundaries signal the limits of current articulation, then physics becomes something more dynamic than ontological excavation.

It becomes the evolution of structured possibility.

Each new theory does not reveal deeper substance.

It reorganises constraint.

It opens new instance spaces.

It expands the domain of coherent articulation.

The “problem” of quantum gravity is therefore not a hole in reality.

It is a pressure point in our present articulation of possibility.

And pressure points are precisely where new structure emerges.

Closing Reorientation

The representational imagination demands a final picture of the world.

Relational thinking demands something else:

An account of how pictures relate.

Incompleteness is not a scandal.

It is the condition of expressive life.

There may never be a theory of everything.

There may only be an indefinitely extensible network of constraint systems, locally coordinated, globally open.

Not a finished universe.

But an unfolding articulation of possibility.

Relational Cuts: 6 Relation Before Object

If the task of physics is not to discover ontological primitives but to articulate structured potentials and their compatibility relations, then we require a formal language suited to that task.

Most existing physical formalisms remain object-first:

particles,
fields,
manifolds,
states.

Relations appear secondarily — as interactions between already-given entities.

But relational ontology reverses that order.

Structure precedes object.

Constraint precedes instance.

Relation precedes thing.

There already exists a mathematical framework that takes this reversal seriously: category theory.

Developed in the mid-twentieth century by Samuel Eilenberg and Saunders Mac Lane, category theory was not originally intended as metaphysics. It was a structural tool for relating different areas of mathematics.

Yet its core move is philosophically radical:

It defines systems not by their internal substance, but by the morphisms — the structure-preserving mappings — between them.

1. Objects as Nodes of Relation

In a category:

Objects are defined only by their position within a network of morphisms.
Morphisms encode structure-preserving transformations.
Composition governs how transformations relate.

An object without morphisms is empty.

It has no meaning outside its relational embedding.

This is not merely a technical convenience.

It formalises a relational stance:

Identity is given through structural position, not intrinsic content.

2. Constraint Systems as Categories

Now consider our earlier formulation.

General relativity and quantum field theory were treated as constraint systems generating instance spaces.

We may reinterpret each constraint system as defining a category:

Objects: allowable configurations under the constraint.
Morphisms: admissible transformations preserving coherence.
Composition: sequential application of transformations.

On this view:

The relativistic constraint system becomes a category of geometrically coherent configurations.
The quantum constraint system becomes a category of state-space evolutions preserving operator structure.

Neither is reduced to the other.

Each is structurally complete relative to its own internal rules.

3. Compatibility as Functorial Relation

The classical ambition of unification assumes that both theories must embed into a single larger structure.

Category theory offers a subtler alternative: the functor.

A functor maps one category to another while preserving structure.

This is not embedding into a deeper substrate.

It is translation under constraint preservation.

The question of quantum gravity becomes:

Does there exist a functorial relation between the relativistic and quantum constraint categories that preserves essential structure within overlapping domains?

If yes, we have coordination.

If no, we have principled incompatibility.

The focus shifts from ontology to mapping conditions.

4. Failure as Non-Functoriality

In previous posts, we treated paradox and divergence as boundary markers of failed co-actualisation.

Category theory makes this precise.

Failure occurs when no structure-preserving mapping can be defined between two systems under specified constraints.

The infinities of quantum gravity attempts may be read not as hints of deeper substance, but as indicators that a naïve functor cannot exist under the imposed assumptions.

This reframes the technical crisis:

The problem is not that spacetime and quantum states “really” contradict.

It is that our attempted mappings fail to preserve structure.

The failure is formal.

Not ontological.

5. No Final Category

A temptation immediately appears:

If categories can be related by functors, perhaps there exists a “category of all categories” — a final structure containing everything.

Category theory itself warns against this.

There is no totalising category without paradox. Structure is inherently stratified.

Relational ontology converges here:

There is no global frame guaranteeing ultimate unification.

There are only networks of relations between structured potentials.

The dream of a single, final, all-encompassing theory dissolves into a web of coordinated mappings.

6. A New Ambition

If this direction is correct, the deepest physics would not identify the fundamental object.

It would identify:

the admissible morphisms between constraint systems,
the invariants preserved across translation,
and the boundaries where translation necessarily fails.

The “theory of everything” becomes a theory of relation between theories.

Not metaphysical reduction.

Structural articulation.

Closing Reversal

Physics began with substances.

It moved to fields.

It now flirts with information.

But perhaps its next maturation is relational formalism.

Not discovering what the world is made of.

But mapping how structured potentials can coherently transform into one another.

Relation before object.

Constraint before substance.

Compatibility before unification.

Relational Cuts: 5 Information Is Not a Substance

Few words carry more authority in contemporary physics than information.

Black holes are said to preserve it.

The universe may be made of it.

Quantum theory is often recast as a theory about it.

When ontology begins to wobble, “information” is invoked as stabiliser.

But what is being stabilised?

And what, precisely, is information?

1. The Black Hole Anxiety

The black hole information paradox — associated with work by figures such as Stephen Hawking — arises from a perceived tension:

General relativity predicts black holes with event horizons from which nothing escapes.
Quantum field theory implies unitary evolution, which preserves information.

If a black hole evaporates via Hawking radiation and information is lost, quantum unitarity appears violated.

Therefore, we are told, information must somehow be preserved.

The paradox feels existential.

Because “loss of information” is treated as ontological catastrophe.

But why?

2. Information as Reified Constraint

In physics, information is often treated as if it were a conserved substance — something that flows, is stored, or is destroyed.

Yet strictly speaking, information is not an object.

It is a measure defined relative to a formal system of distinctions.

In quantum mechanics, information is defined relative to state space and its allowed transformations.

In thermodynamics, it is defined relative to coarse-grained macrostates.

In every case, information is parasitic on constraint.

There is no information without a prior specification of:

possible states,
allowable transformations,
and equivalence relations.

Information is not a thing in the world.

It is a property of a constraint system.

3. The Category Error

The information paradox arises because two different constraint systems are treated as if they share a single, global informational ledger.

In quantum theory, unitarity preserves the structure of state space.
In general relativity, horizon formation restructures the geometric accessibility of events.

When these are conflated, we demand that “information” be conserved across incompatible constraint regimes.

But if information is defined relative to a given instance space, then asking whether it is “lost” across radically different construals is already a category mistake.

The preservation of quantum state structure within

I_Q

I_{R.}

The paradox emerges only if we assume a universal information substrate beneath both.

That assumption is not derived.

It is inherited.

4. When Substance Disappears, Information Replaces It

Modern physics largely abandoned substance ontology.

Particles dissolved into fields.

Fields dissolved into excitations.

Spacetime may dissolve into quantum structure.

At each stage, as ontological solidity thins, information is invoked as the new fundamental.

“It from bit.”

Reality as computation.

The universe as code.

But this move quietly reinstates what it claims to transcend.

Information becomes the new substance — abstract, intangible, but ontologically privileged.

Relationally, this is unnecessary.

Constraint suffices.

5. Reframing the Paradox

If we treat both general relativity and quantum theory as constraint systems defining distinct instance spaces, then the black hole paradox shifts form.

The real question is not:

Is information destroyed?

It is:

Are we illegitimately projecting a single informational measure across incompatible constraint regimes?

If so, the “loss” is not ontological.

It is perspectival misalignment.

Information is conserved within the domain in which it is defined.

Outside that domain, the concept may simply not apply.

6. Toward Informational Modesty

A relational meta-theory would treat information not as ontological bedrock but as a derived property of structured potential.

Different constraint systems generate different informational structures.

Compatibility between systems would require:

mapping correspondences between informational measures,
identifying where those correspondences break,
and determining whether breakdown reflects genuine incompatibility or merely domain limitation.

The drama cools again.

No metaphysical crisis.

Just structured coordination problems.

Closing Displacement

The phrase “information cannot be destroyed” carries theological overtones.

It promises permanence in a universe increasingly stripped of substance.

But relationally, permanence belongs only to constraint structures within their domains of coherence.

Information is not sacred.

It is local.

And once we recognise that locality, the black hole stops threatening reality itself.

It merely marks a boundary in our current map of coordination.

Relational Cuts: 4 Constraint, Co-Actualisation, and Failure

If physics is not the excavation of ontological primitives but the articulation of structured potentials, then we must speak more carefully about structure.

In previous posts, general relativity and quantum field theory were treated as distinct regimes of relational coherence — systems that stabilise patterned possibility under different constraints.

But what is a constraint in this context?

And what would it mean for two constraint systems to operate together?

This post sharpens those questions.

1. Constraint Is Not Limitation

In ordinary language, a constraint restricts.

Relationally, a constraint does something more subtle.

A constraint delimits the space of possible instances such that coherence becomes actualisable.

Without constraint, there is no structured possibility — only indeterminate potential.

In this sense:

The metric structure of spacetime in general relativity is a constraint system.
The commutation relations and field operators of quantum field theory are constraint systems.

Each specifies:

what transformations preserve coherence,
what counts as an invariant,
and which configurations are excluded.

A theory is therefore not a catalogue of objects.

It is a formal articulation of constraint.

2. Instance Spaces and Compatibility

Every constraint system defines an instance space — the structured set of possible actualisations consistent with its internal rules.

Let us call:

$C_R$
the constraint system of relativistic geometry.
$C_Q$
the constraint system of quantum fields.

Each generates its own instance space:

$I_R$
: relativistically coherent configurations.
$I_Q$
: quantum-coherent configurations.

The classical narrative assumes that both instance spaces must embed into a single, deeper space

I_*

C_{*}

But relationally, that assumption is precisely what is in question.

Instead, we ask:

Under what conditions can elements of
$I_R$ $I_Q$

This is not embedding.

It is compatibility.

3. Co-Actualisation

Co-actualisation does not mean merging two systems into one.

It means identifying a region of constraint overlap where both systems can operate without mutual violation.

In simple terms:

A relativistic description assumes smooth manifold structure and deterministic geometric evolution.
A quantum description assumes operator-based evolution and probabilistic state structure.

These assumptions are not inherently contradictory.

They become contradictory only when each is extended globally and treated as ontologically exhaustive.

Co-actualisation therefore requires local coordination of constraint domains.

The question becomes one of domain of validity — not metaphysical supremacy.

4. Failure as Diagnostic

When infinities appear in attempts to quantise gravity, or when information paradoxes arise in black hole thermodynamics, these are typically treated as signs that one theory must give way to a deeper one.

Relationally, such failures may indicate something else:

The attempted co-actualisation exceeds the region of constraint compatibility.

Failure is not a glimpse of ultimate ontology.

It is a diagnostic signal.

It marks the boundary at which two structured potentials can no longer be jointly stabilised under the imposed cut.

This reframes paradox as boundary condition.

5. No Global Frame

A crucial implication follows.

If co-actualisation is always local to regions of constraint overlap, then there may be no global constraint system that subsumes all others.

The idea of a final, all-encompassing theory presupposes that such a global frame exists.

Relational ontology does not guarantee this.

It allows for indefinitely extensible coordination without closure.

The ambition of physics shifts from discovering the One to mapping the manifold of compatibility relations.

6. The Minimal Schema

At its most abstract, the relational meta-theoretical task requires:

A formal characterisation of constraint systems.
A definition of instance spaces relative to constraint.
A criterion for compatibility between constraint systems.
A method for identifying failure modes of co-actualisation.

Notice what is absent.

There is no appeal to substance.

No ultimate building blocks.

No ontological bedrock.

There is only structured potential and the conditions under which structures can jointly stabilise.

Closing Edge

The dream of quantum gravity seeks the deepest equation.

A relational programme seeks something stranger:

A calculus of compatibility.

If such a calculus can be articulated, the “problem” of unification dissolves.

Not because everything becomes one.

But because the demand that everything must become one is revealed as optional.

Relational Cuts: 3 Coordination Without Substrate

If general relativity and quantum field theory are not rival descriptions of a single ontological substrate, then what is their relation?

Surely they are not merely disconnected languages.

Surely physics is not an archipelago of unrelated frameworks.

If we refuse depth ontology, we must offer something in its place.

This post begins that reconstruction.

1. From Unification to Coordination

The traditional ambition of theoretical physics has been unification.

Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism.

The electroweak theory unified electromagnetic and weak interactions.

The aspiration toward quantum gravity extends this pattern: gravity must be unified with quantum theory because all fundamental forces must ultimately belong to a single framework.

But this ambition rests on a presupposition:

that coherence requires ontological integration.

Relationally, coherence requires something else.

It requires systematic coordination between different regimes of actualisation.

Unification seeks a deeper thing.

Coordination maps the constraints under which different construals can coexist without collapse.

2. Systems as Theories of Instances

Recall the relational premise:

A system is not a thing.

It is a structured potential — a theory of possible instances.

General relativity and quantum field theory are both systems in this sense. Each defines:

a space of allowable configurations,
constraints on transformation,
invariants under certain operations,
and conditions for coherence.

They do not describe objects.

They define structured possibility spaces.

The “conflict” appears when we assume that both systems must generate instances within the same underlying ontological field.

But that assumption is precisely what is under question.

3. The Real Task: Mapping Intersections of Constraint

Instead of asking for a deeper substrate, we ask:

Where do the constraints that stabilise relativistic coherence intersect with those that stabilise quantum coherence?

More precisely:

Under what conditions does a relativistic instance remain stable when subjected to quantum constraint structures?
Under what conditions does a quantum instance remain coherent under relativistic curvature constraints?

The problem shifts from ontology to compatibility of constraint systems.

This is not trivial.

It is more exacting.

Because it requires us to identify what counts as a constraint independent of any assumption about ontological depth.

4. Black Holes as Perspectival Stress Tests

Consider the standard case: black holes.

In general relativity, they are regions of extreme curvature in spacetime geometry.

In quantum theory, they raise issues such as information preservation and vacuum fluctuation near horizons.

The “information paradox” arises because we treat:

spacetime geometry as an ontological structure, and
quantum state evolution as an ontological law,

and then discover that they cannot both be globally maintained.

But if both geometry and quantum states are perspectival stabilisations, the paradox shifts form.

The issue is not that reality contradicts itself.

It is that two different constraint regimes are being extrapolated beyond their domains of stable coordination.

The black hole becomes not a tear in reality, but a tear in our assumption of ontological unity.

5. What a Meta-Theory Would Actually Do

A genuine relational meta-theory would not:

quantise spacetime,
geometrise quantum states,
or discover a smaller building block.

It would instead:

Formalise the structure of constraint systems.
Specify how different systems delimit instance spaces.
Identify conditions under which two constraint systems can be jointly actualised.
Map the failure modes of joint actualisation.

This is a theory of coordination, not constitution.

It does not seek what reality is “made of.”

It seeks how different structured potentials relate without collapsing into a single metaphysical frame.

6. A Quiet Consequence

Notice what disappears.

There is no need for:

ultimate particles,
fundamental strings,
or quantised geometry as ontological primitives.

Such entities may appear within particular construals — and may function powerfully within them.

But they are not required as the foundation of being.

The demand for ontological primitives is replaced by analysis of relational constraint.

The metaphysical drama cools.

The structural work intensifies.

Closing Shift

If this direction is correct, then the search for a “theory of everything” is misnamed.

There is no everything.

There are structured potentials.

And the task of physics becomes:

mapping the relations between them.

The deepest theory would not describe the world.

It would describe how descriptions can stably co-actualise.

That is a very different ambition.

And it has barely begun.

Relational Cuts: 2 Scale Is Not a Ladder

The usual story runs like this:

General relativity governs the large.
Quantum mechanics governs the small.
Therefore, at sufficiently extreme scales — the very large and very small simultaneously — the two must be unified.

This seems obvious. Natural. Almost trivial.

But this narrative smuggles in a decisive assumption:

that scale is an ontological ladder along which reality is arranged.

Let us examine that assumption.

1. The Ontology of “Small” and “Large”

When physicists say quantum mechanics applies at small scales and general relativity at large ones, they are not merely describing measurement ranges.

They are implying that reality itself is stratified by size.

That there exists:

a microscopic layer of particles or fields,
a macroscopic layer of spacetime geometry,
and a continuous ontological hierarchy connecting them.

But this hierarchy is never observed as such.

It is inferred from theoretical extrapolation.

The claim that “quantum effects dominate at small scales” already presupposes that the “small scale” exists as a domain of being prior to the construal.

Relationally, this is backwards.

2. Scale as Construal Constraint

Scale is not an ontological depth.

It is a constraint on construal.

When we describe a phenomenon as “microscopic,” we are not accessing a deeper layer of reality. We are adopting a particular operational cut — one that stabilises certain regularities and renders others negligible.

Likewise, “macroscopic” descriptions are not higher ontological tiers. They are different stabilisations of patterned possibility.

From this perspective:

Quantum field theory is not the description of “what reality is made of.”
General relativity is not the description of “what reality becomes when aggregated.”

They are distinct regimes of relational coherence, actualised under different constraints.

The small does not underlie the large.

The large does not emerge from the small.

Both are perspectival.

3. The Myth of Ontological Reduction

The belief that smaller scales are more fundamental is an inheritance from mechanistic ontology.

It is the intuition that:

to understand something, we must break it into smaller parts.

But “part” is already a relational category. It presupposes a whole relative to which something counts as a part.

There is no absolute decomposition.

Every division is a cut.

In quantum field theory, we cut the world into fields and excitations.

In general relativity, we cut it into manifolds and curvature.

Neither cut reveals the “true layer.”

Each stabilises a different pattern of possibility.

4. Where the Crisis Appears

The crisis of quantum gravity is typically located at the Planck scale — where gravitational curvature becomes significant at quantum dimensions.

But notice what this means.

It assumes that:

scale is a continuous ontological parameter,
quantum and gravitational descriptions occupy different regions of that parameter,
and at some boundary they must overlap.

The overlap is treated as a collision between ontological domains.

Relationally, however, there are no domains.

There are only different regimes of actualisation.

The so-called Planck scale is not a place where two ontologies meet.

It is a region where two construal regimes are simultaneously strained.

The “incompatibility” signals not ontological breakdown, but perspectival interference.

5. Coordination Without Depth

If scale is construal-relative rather than ontologically stratified, then the demand for unification changes form.

We no longer ask:

What is the deeper layer beneath both relativity and quantum mechanics?

We ask:

Under what constraints do these two modes of stabilising patterned possibility cease to coordinate?

The task becomes mapping the limits of relational coherence.

Not digging downward.

6. A More Radical Possibility

What if there is no single scale at which “everything becomes one”?

What if the dream of quantum gravity is the last echo of a depth ontology — the belief that reality must converge at some foundational level?

A relational account does not forbid coordination.

It forbids absolute depth.

There is no ladder from small to large.

There is only a shifting field of possible cuts.

General relativity and quantum field theory are not stacked vertically.

They are aligned laterally.

Closing Tension

If scale is perspectival, then the phrase “unifying the very small and the very large” is already a metaphysical overreach.

The real question is no longer:

What happens when we shrink spacetime to quantum size?

But:

What happens when two incompatible stabilisations of relational coherence are forced into the same construal?

That question is subtler.

And far more dangerous.

Pages