(Post 26 in “Reflexive Matter: Relational Ontology and the Physics of Meaning”)
At the intersection of quantum theory and general relativity lies the greatest unresolved tension in modern physics. Quantum theory describes the world in terms of discrete events, indeterminacy, and relational measurement. General relativity, meanwhile, treats spacetime as a smooth, continuous manifold shaped by mass and energy. The two theories work spectacularly well within their own domains — yet they resist unification.
From the relational perspective, however, this resistance is not a flaw. It reflects something deeply instructive: a fundamental cut in how meaning is construed at different levels of organisation.
Not a Clash of Worlds — A Shift in Construal
Rather than imagining two incompatible worlds — one “quantum” and one “gravitational” — we can see them as two modes of construal, operating at different levels of reflexive complexity. Quantum theory offers a construal of the world as emergent from irreducible relational distinctions — events instantiated through perspectival cuts. General relativity offers a construal of the coherence of such distinctions at scale — how relational dynamics cohere across extended systems.
Their incompatibility arises only if we mistake either for an ontological foundation. But in relational ontology, neither is foundational. Both are instances — accounts of possible construals. Their apparent conflict is not ontological but epistemological: a clash of coordination strategies, each reflexively valid within its own mode.
Gravity as Constraint, Quantum as Cut
Gravity is the reflexive structuring of possibility: it constrains which relational distinctions are coherent across scales. Quantum phenomena, by contrast, instantiate the individuation of such distinctions: they are the actualising of potential through perspectival cut.
So instead of forcing a synthesis on the terms of either, we can ask:
How does the reflexive organisation of cuts (quantum) cohere with the reflexive coordination of constraints (gravitational)?
This is the terrain of quantum gravity — not a unification of fields, but a meta-coordination: a theory not of things, but of how distinct construals can reflexively relate.
Entanglement and Curvature as Meta-Relations
Entanglement shows that meaning is not localisable — cuts reverberate across systems. Spacetime curvature shows that coherence is likewise non-local — constraints echo across the manifold. Both are forms of reflexive coordination. Both index a deeper relational integrity: one through instantiation, the other through coherence.
Quantum gravity, then, is not a theory of what reality is, but of how different orders of relational construal can be meaningfully integrated — how fields of possibility relate reflexively across cuts.
No comments:
Post a Comment