Ontological Evasions in Physics, Part 12 Cosmic Initial Conditions: The Privilege of the First Frame

Physics often presumes special initial conditions—low entropy, finely tuned parameters, or precisely aligned fields—to make the universe calculable. These assumptions work technically but raise a deeper ontological question: why these conditions, and not others? By treating the first frame as given, physics effectively shields the beginning of the universe from relational scrutiny.

The evasive manoeuvre

By invoking arbitrary initial conditions, physics displaces explanatory demand. The universe is treated as a calculation with prefixed inputs: what cannot be explained dynamically is simply declared as “initial.” This preserves the predictive machinery while avoiding engagement with how relational actualisation could generate such a starting point.

The ontological cost

The first frame becomes privileged and isolated from relational analysis. Constraints, emergence, and alignment are meaningful only after the initial conditions are set, making the beginning appear as a brute, inexplicable axiom. The relational dynamics of genesis itself are left unexamined.

The epistemic collapse

Once the initial frame is treated as untouchable, theory loses the ability to probe why the universe has the structure it does. Models can reproduce observed evolution but cannot account for the origin of that evolution’s relational possibilities. Explanation collapses into a boundary condition rather than insight.

The theological return

The initial conditions function as a secularised creation myth. Like a divine fiat, they impose order and coherence ex nihilo, guaranteeing the universe’s intelligibility without relational justification. Physics here echoes theological reasoning: the universe begins as a privileged, unexamined axiom.

A relational reframing

From a relational perspective, initial conditions are not arbitrary. Low entropy, alignment, and structure emerge perspectivally through relational dynamics at the earliest moments of actualisation. The “first frame” is not a brute given but the product of relational resonance, where possibility and constraint co-individuate.

Conclusion

The privileging of initial conditions exemplifies ontological evasion by freezing the point where relational explanation is most needed. A relational reframing restores intelligibility: the universe’s beginning is emergent, structured, and intelligible, not insulated behind a curtain of brute axioms.