In Newtonian mechanics, force is introduced as the cause of acceleration: F=ma. It functions as a relational descriptor: a way of quantifying how interactions constrain motion. Yet across physics, force is often treated as if it were a thing — an invisible push or pull that acts on objects.
This is the distortion: an abstract relational measure recast as a quasi-entity.
The Physics Move
Textbook diagrams picture forces as arrows “acting” on bodies, as though force were an agent.
Explanations invoke “the force of gravity,” “the force of electromagnetism,” or “the strong force,” as though these were substances or entities that somehow do the pushing.
Even in advanced physics, where force is replaced by fields or potentials, the language persists: fields are said to “exert forces,” carrying forward the reification.
Why This Distorts Ontology
Force is not what acts. It is how action is described within a relational frame. To treat it as a causal agent mistakes the representation for the process. It is like confusing the arrow on a map for the movement of a traveler.
The distortion lies in personifying abstraction: force becomes an imagined entity that explains what it only measures.
The Relational Reframing
From a relational standpoint:
Acceleration is the perspectival outcome of interacting constraints.
“Force” is simply the symbolic handle we give to the pattern of relational adjustment.
The world does not push with forces; it coheres through alignment and constraint.
Thus, force is intelligible — but only as a description of relational dynamics, not as an agentive power.
No comments:
Post a Comment