Physics often models systems as closed: isolated entities evolving according to internal laws. Thermodynamics, cosmology, and even quantum mechanics frequently adopt this assumption for tractability. Yet treating closure as a fundamental ontological feature is misleading.
This is the distortion: a methodological boundary is treated as a feature of reality, obscuring the constitutive openness of relational processes.
The Physics Move
Thermodynamic systems are modelled as perfectly insulated, ignoring environmental interaction.
Many cosmological models assume closed universes or isolated regions for analytic simplicity.
Quantum experiments often idealise “isolated” particles or subsystems, assuming external influences can be neglected.
Why This Overextends Ontology
Closure is a modelling convenience, not a natural property:
It masks the constitutive role of context and relational embedding.
It creates the illusion that subsystems can be studied independently of their relational actualisation.
It abstracts away the very interactions that generate dynamics, suggesting autonomy where there is none.
The distortion lies in misreading a methodological boundary as ontic independence.
The Relational Reframing
From a relational standpoint:
No system is truly closed; relational interactions permeate all levels of actualisation.
Thermodynamic flows, cosmological evolution, and quantum correlations are intelligible only in contextual, relational terms.
Recognising closure as epistemic convenience restores awareness of the openness intrinsic to relational dynamics.
Thus, closure is intelligible — but only as a modelling assumption, not a constituent of reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment