Physics relies on abstractions: fields, wavefunctions, spacetime manifolds, potentials. These are tools for description, encoding relational structure and predicting outcomes. Yet often, these abstractions are treated as if they were concrete things — ontologically elevated from description to entity.
This is the distortion: a conceptual scaffolding misread as the furniture of reality itself.
The Physics Move
Quantum field theory treats fields as “real” entities that exist everywhere, sometimes independent of their excitations (particles).
Spacetime is described as a “fabric” that bends, stretches, or ripples — giving the impression of substance.
Wavefunctions in Hilbert space are discussed as “existing” in high-dimensional spaces, divorced from their relational role in actualising outcomes.
Why This Overextends Ontology
Abstractions are representations, not actors. Elevating them to ontic status:
Misplaces the locus of actualisation.
Encourages the illusion that the world is made of entities defined by our descriptions.
Masks the fundamentally relational character of phenomena.
The distortion lies in reifying the map instead of reading the terrain: conceptual elegance becomes ontological commitment.
The Relational Reframing
From a relational perspective:
Fields, spacetime, and wavefunctions are patterns of relational potentiality, intelligible only in the context of interactions.
Their “existence” is symbolic, not substantive; they describe alignment, constraints, and possibilities, not autonomous being.
Recognising their abstract status restores clarity: ontology resides in relational actualisation, not in conceptual scaffolds.
Thus, abstraction is intelligible — but only as a descriptor of relational dynamics, not as an independent component of reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment