Introduction
Black holes are often depicted as some of the most mysterious, concrete objects in our cosmos — gravitational monsters swallowing everything, hiding singularities beyond event horizons. But what if this common picture misses something fundamental? What if a black hole is less a “thing out there” and more a phenomenon enacted through our symbolic and theoretical construals?
In this post, we explore black holes through the lens of relational ontology, a framework that understands systems as structured potentials and instantiation as a perspectival cut — not as temporal or causal events, but as positional enactments within a field of possibilities.
Systems as Structured Potentials: The Black Hole Model
In relational ontology, a system is not a container holding fixed parts; it is a theory of possibilities — a structured set of relations that specify what can be actualised. The system of black holes, then, is the astrophysical model: a mathematically and conceptually articulated space of potential phenomena constrained by general relativity and observational data.
This system includes equations describing spacetime curvature, constraints on matter and energy distributions, and predicted behaviours like gravitational lensing or accretion disc dynamics. Crucially, it is a construal — a symbolic artefact that does not mirror a mind-independent reality but maps out the possible patterns we can align with observed data.
Instantiation as Perspectival Cut: Enacting the Black Hole
A black hole instance emerges when an observation or measurement is construed as an enactment of the system’s potential. For example, astronomers interpret the behaviour of light near a dense mass, or the gravitational waves emitted by merging bodies, as instantiating “black hole” phenomena.
But this instantiation is not a causal unfolding of matter crossing an event horizon; it is a perspectival cut — a shift in stance that foregrounds some possibilities while backgrounding others, rendering the phenomenon meaningful within the astrophysics discourse.
This means that the event horizon, the “point of no return,” is not a pre-existing, ontologically prior boundary but a conceptual distinction enacted within a network of observations and theoretical constraints.
Meaning as Constitutive: No Black Hole Without Construal
Without the construal that we enact, there is no black hole — only a complex array of undifferentiated potentials. The black hole is thus not an independent object but a constituted reality, brought forth through the alignment of mathematical models, observational data, and interpretive practices.
This has profound implications for how we understand “reality” in astrophysics: what counts as a black hole is inseparable from the symbolic and social processes that frame, interpret, and sustain that phenomenon.
Symbolic Reflexivity: Black Holes as Conceptual Attractors
Black holes do more than describe cosmic behaviour; they serve as symbolic attractors within scientific discourse. They shape what researchers look for, how they design experiments, and the narratives through which the public imagines space.
This reflexive role means black holes are simultaneously theoretical constraints and imaginative possibilities — points where symbolic, technical, and empirical dimensions converge in a dynamic alignment.
Conclusion
Reframing black holes as enacted phenomena within relational ontology invites us to move beyond objectivist assumptions. It highlights the active role of construal in constituting what we take to be reality, emphasising that black holes are not pre-existing “things” but dynamic, symbolic configurations enacted through scientific practice.
In the next post, we will explore Hawking radiation — a theoretical prediction that extends this relational framing into the domain of quantum gravity and symbolic anticipation.
No comments:
Post a Comment