“Laws of nature” are typically framed as generalisations that describe regularities in phenomena. Yet physics often treats them as ontologically prescriptive: forces that govern reality rather than summaries of relational patterns.
This is the distortion: a descriptive abstraction promoted to the status of a causal entity.
The Physics Move
Newtonian mechanics: the “laws” dictate motion, giving the impression that objects are compelled to follow them.
Quantum mechanics: the Schrödinger equation is sometimes described as the law that drives wavefunction evolution.
Cosmology: general relativity is often framed as spacetime obeying Einstein’s equations, implying that the equations themselves impose reality.
Why This Distorts Ontology
Laws do not act; they describe how relational structures coherently unfold. Treating them as active forces reverses the explanatory order: we imagine reality obeying descriptions, rather than descriptions tracking relational actualisation.
The distortion lies in anthropomorphising abstractions: what is a map of coherence is mistaken for the terrain itself.
The Relational Reframing
From a relational standpoint:
Motion, interactions, and evolution are intelligible as actualisations of relational possibilities, not obedience to external laws.
Equations, principles, and rules are symbolic tools capturing patterns, not prescriptive entities.
Regularities emerge from the alignment of systems and constraints, making “laws” epistemic codifications, not ontic governors.
Thus, laws of nature are intelligible — but only as descriptions of relational dynamics, not as independent directors of reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment