Introduction
The black hole information paradox has long challenged physicists and philosophers alike. At its core, it asks: Does information that falls into a black hole disappear forever, violating quantum theory’s insistence on information preservation?
Traditional approaches frame this as a clash between classical and quantum physics, sparking debates about the fate of information beyond the event horizon. But what if the paradox itself arises from assumptions that don’t hold in a relational ontology? What if “information” is not a fixed commodity lost or preserved in an absolute sense, but a constituted, relational phenomenon dependent on construal and perspective?
In this post, we revisit the information paradox to see how relational ontology offers a fresh, dissolving view of the problem — shifting the question from metaphysical deadlock to a challenge of relational coordination.
Classical Framing of the Paradox
According to classical general relativity, black holes possess event horizons beyond which nothing — not even light — escapes. Information about the internal state is effectively trapped, seemingly lost to the outside universe.
Quantum mechanics, however, requires that information be preserved in physical processes, leading to a contradiction when combined with classical black hole theory. This tension forms the heart of the information paradox.
Relational Ontology: Information as Relational Construal
Relational ontology challenges the notion of information as a fixed “thing” residing inside a black hole. Instead, information is understood as patterns of relational meaning enacted through construal — dependent on how observers, processes, and symbolic practices align.
In other words, information does not have an independent existence detached from the relational field in which it is observed and interpreted. It is a constituted phenomenon, emergent through the interactions and perspectival cuts within a given system.
The Event Horizon as a Perspectival Boundary
Since the event horizon itself is not an absolute, physical surface but a relational boundary defined by specific configurations of processes and observational stances, the status of information crossing it is also relative.
Different observers, embedded in different relational contexts, will construe information flows differently. What is “lost” from one perspective may be “preserved” or transformed in another. The horizon’s meaning and effect depend on the observer’s position within the relational topology.
Dissolving the Paradox: No Universal Vantage Point
The classical paradox presumes a single, universal vantage from which to adjudicate the fate of information. But relational ontology rejects this universalism.
Instead, multiple relational realities coexist, each with their own instantiated patterns of information. The paradox thus dissolves into a problem of coordinating relational construals across boundaries, rather than a metaphysical impossibility.
Reflexivity and Theoretical Evolution
The information paradox acts as a symbolic attractor in physics, driving innovative theories such as the holographic principle and firewall hypotheses. These approaches themselves represent evolving relational construals — new ways of aligning theory, observation, and symbolic meaning.
Rather than seeking an ultimate, observer-independent solution, relational ontology invites us to see these theoretical advances as dynamic reconfigurations within a relational field of possibilities.
Conclusion
Reconsidering the black hole information paradox through relational ontology shifts the problem from a metaphysical impasse to a challenge of relational coordination and perspectival enactment.
Information is not simply lost or preserved in an absolute sense; it is constituted through the symbolic, observational, and theoretical practices that enact reality.
This view encourages humility and openness, recognising that paradoxes often signal the limits of current construals — inviting us to explore new relational horizons where old binaries give way to dynamic patterns of meaning and process.
No comments:
Post a Comment