Ontological Evasions in Physics: Additional Evasions Series Conclusion From Evasion to Relational Insight

Parts 9–16 have surveyed a second wave of ontological evasions in physics and cosmology. Here again, a pattern emerges: when faced with contingency, complexity, or relational subtlety, physics often opts for technical or conceptual shortcuts rather than rethinking ontology.

The evasions revisited

• Anthropic Principle: Explanation is displaced onto the observer; contingency becomes tautology.

• Renormalisation: Infinities are swept aside rather than confronted relationally.

• Inflationary Cosmology: Anomalies are erased by fiat through hyper-expansion.

• Cosmic Initial Conditions: The first frame is insulated as a brute given.

• Wavefunction Realism: Abstract Hilbert spaces are reified, masking relational actualisation.

• Cosmological Constant: Tunable parameters replace relational understanding.

• Entanglement: “Spooky action” preserves separation rather than relational coherence.

• Emergent Gravity: Labels of emergence substitute for explicated relational dynamics.

Each manoeuvre protects formalism, secures predictive success, or maintains the comfort of established paradigms. Yet each does so at the cost of ontological clarity: possibility, alignment, and relational actualisation are repeatedly sidelined.

The cumulative cost

Technical success obscures understanding. Explanations are circular, abstracted, or deferred to hypothetical entities. Observers, constants, infinities, or emergent labels act as placeholders for what physics cannot yet apprehend about the relational unfolding of reality. Across this second wave of evasions, epistemic integrity is compromised in the name of mathematical or conceptual convenience.

The theological echo

Even in ostensibly secular formulations, the structure of these evasions mirrors theological reasoning: hidden agents, privileged conditions, and omnipotent parameters are invoked implicitly to guarantee coherence and intelligibility. Ontological evasion is thus entwined with metaphysical motifs, from subtle divinities in constants to unseen architects in emergent constructs.

Relational insight

Relational ontology resolves the pattern elegantly. Across all these cases, what appears evasive becomes intelligible when relation is treated as fundamental:

• Possibility is perspectival, not brute.

• Alignment and coherence emerge from collective actualisation, not arbitrary dials or abstract spaces.

• Observers, measurement, and initial conditions are embedded within relational dynamics, not privileged outside them.

• Emergence is a structured process, not a semantic placeholder.

Viewed relationally, each “evasion” is exposed as an ontological misalignment between formalism and actuality. By foregrounding relational actualisation, these phenomena become intelligible without recourse to tautologies, infinities, or metaphysical placeholders.

The lesson

The second wave of ontological evasions confirms the logic first identified in Parts 1–8: physics repeatedly chooses evasion over reflection. Technical success, predictive power, and formal elegance cannot substitute for ontological insight. Relational framing restores intelligibility, reconnects actuality and possibility, and dissolves the paradoxes that evasions are meant to suppress.

Ontological evasion is avoidable. Relational insight is unavoidable.

Ontological Evasions in Physics, Part 15 Entanglement as “Spooky Action”: Distance without Relation

Quantum entanglement presents correlations between particles that persist regardless of spatial separation. Traditionally, this phenomenon is described as “spooky action at a distance”, suggesting instantaneous effects across space. While mathematically precise, this framing constitutes a classic ontological evasion: it preserves the formalism of separate entities while refusing to reconceive relation as fundamental.

The evasive manoeuvre

By treating entanglement as mysterious linkage between pre-existing, spatially distinct particles, physics sidesteps the relational core of the phenomenon. The ontology remains atomistic: entities exist independently, and relation is treated as an added effect rather than constitutive of actuality.

The ontological cost

Relational actualisation is obscured. Entangled particles are conceptualised as isolated objects, linked by correlations that appear externally imposed rather than emergent from underlying interaction. Possibility and alignment are masked as instantaneous “effects” rather than understood as manifestations of relational coherence across a system.

The epistemic collapse

This evasion constrains interpretation. Predictions are accurate, but understanding is stunted. Observers cannot access the relational mechanism; entanglement is measured but not explained. Knowledge becomes a catalogue of correlations rather than insight into relational structuring.

The theological return

“Spooky action” evokes a hidden agency: an unseen force coordinating events across distance, reminiscent of divine orchestration. Physics here unintentionally mirrors theological logic, embedding the unseen as necessary to preserve formal order.

A relational reframing

Relational ontology dissolves the mystery. Entanglement reflects actualised correlation across relationally aligned systems. Spatial separation is perspectival, not absolute; coherence emerges from collective constraints, not instantaneous messaging. Possibility and actualisation are inherently relational.

Conclusion

Entanglement, when framed as “spooky action,” exemplifies ontological evasion: the relational basis of quantum phenomena is obscured by atomistic assumptions. Relational ontology restores clarity: correlations are emergent from the structure of relation, not from inexplicable distance-spanning effects.

Ontological Evasions in Physics, Part 10 Renormalisation: Sweeping Infinities Under the Rug

Quantum field theory is one of physics’ most successful frameworks. Yet at its core lies a profound difficulty: when calculations are carried through, they often yield infinities—predictions of physical quantities that diverge without bound. Such results are physically meaningless, since no measurement can return infinity.

To salvage the theory, physicists developed renormalisation, a procedure that systematically cancels infinities by redefining quantities like mass and charge. The outcome is astonishingly accurate predictions. But ontologically, this is a classic evasion: the infinities themselves are never explained, only erased.

The evasive manoeuvre

Renormalisation declares certain infinities irrelevant, absorbing them into redefined parameters. Instead of confronting what the divergences reveal about relation and actualisation at quantum scales, physics introduces a technical workaround that restores calculational stability.

The manoeuvre is seductive because it works: quantum electrodynamics achieves predictions accurate to many decimal places. But the very effectiveness of renormalisation hides its ontological cost.

The ontological cost

Infinities are symptoms of a deeper misapprehension of relation. By sweeping them away, physics refuses to ask whether its ontology—fields as continuous entities, point particles, interactions at arbitrarily small scales—might itself be incoherent.

Actualisation is replaced by adjustment: relation is treated not as the source of coherence, but as a source of divergence requiring mathematical surgery. The infinities remain as ghostly reminders of an unresolved ontological misfit.

The epistemic collapse

Because renormalisation succeeds technically, physics risks mistaking practical adequacy for ontological clarity. The predictive triumph disguises the absence of explanatory grounding. The infinities are never understood, only removed. In this way, the epistemic integrity of theory is compromised: physics accepts a black-box procedure where ontology should have been rethought.

The theological return

In renormalisation, we glimpse another theological echo: infinities as glimpses of an absolute, tamed by ritual procedure. Just as theology invokes the infinite as a sign of divine transcendence, physics encounters infinities as marks of ontological excess—then neutralises them without comprehension.

A relational reframing

From a relational standpoint, infinities signal the limits of an inappropriate ontology. If relation is perspectival and actualised across scales, then treating interactions as continuous down to arbitrarily small points is misconceived. Divergence arises from imposing the wrong metaphysical scaffold.

Relational ontology replaces renormalisation with reframing: coherence emerges not from subtracting infinities but from recognising the perspectival limits of applicability. Actualisation is finite, selective, and scale-dependent; relation does not diverge into the infinite.

Conclusion

Renormalisation exemplifies ontological evasion through technical virtuosity. Infinities are swept aside rather than addressed, preserving predictive power at the cost of relational clarity. A relational reframing dissolves the problem: infinities are not realities to be cancelled, but artefacts of an ontology unwilling to confront the perspectival, finite character of relation.

Ontological Evasions in Physics, Part 6 Quantum Bayesianism (QBism): Retreat into the Observer

Quantum mechanics repeatedly confronts physics with the tension between formalism and ontology. One response to this tension is Quantum Bayesianism, or QBism, which recasts the quantum state not as a property of a system, but as a reflection of an agent’s personal beliefs about possible outcomes.

At first glance, QBism appears to solve the measurement problem elegantly: collapse is nothing more than the updating of an observer’s probabilities. But beneath this apparent clarity lies a familiar ontological evasion.

The evasive manoeuvre

QBism relocates reality into the mind of the observer. The formalism is preserved, but at the cost of dissolving the system itself into an epistemic shadow. Outcomes are not actualised in the world; they are experiences registered by agents. The world becomes an extension of belief, not a domain of relational actuality.

This manoeuvre allows physicists to sidestep deep questions: What is the ontology of the quantum system? How does possibility actualise? Instead of addressing these issues, QBism effectively says: “Don’t worry about reality; focus on your expectations.”

The ontological cost

The world is no longer a network of relational events; it is a projection of subjective credences. Possibility and actualisation are flattened into the agent’s updates. Collective alignment, interaction, and emergent structure—the core of relational ontology—vanish from the picture. Reality is now dependent on consciousness, which means relationality is subordinated to belief.

The epistemic collapse

If outcomes exist only in the agent’s experience, then experiment no longer constrains reality; it constrains belief. Science risks becoming an internal bookkeeping exercise: probabilities adjusted in minds, rather than structures revealed in the world. Evidence cannot falsify or confirm theory in any robust sense, because it is inseparable from the observer’s prior expectations.

The theological return

As with other evasions, QBism smuggles in the theological impulse, albeit subtly. By placing the observer at the centre of actualisation, it effectively installs a local, personal “creator” for each measurement event. Each agent becomes a tiny deity, and the universe itself is fragmented into countless subjective realms.

A relational reframing

Relational ontology dissolves the paradox without retreating into subjectivity. Outcomes are actualised not in isolated observers, but through the collective alignment of relational construals. Possibility is not private; it emerges perspectivally across interacting systems. Measurement is a moment of relational actualisation, not the conjuring of reality by an agent’s mind.

By reframing the problem relationally, QBism’s retreat into subjectivity is unnecessary. One can preserve the predictive power of the formalism while keeping ontology intact. Possibility, actuality, and alignment remain real, but they are emergent and collective, not the product of isolated belief.

Conclusion

QBism exemplifies an evasion that preserves formalism by privatising reality. Measurement and collapse are recast as epistemic updates, but in doing so, physics abandons relational ontology. Relational thinking restores coherence: actuality emerges in relation, not in the mind, and science remains a probe into the world rather than a meditation on belief.

Ontological Evasions in Physics, Part 4 Many Worlds: Infinity as a Get-Out Clause

Quantum mechanics confronts physics with stubborn contradictions. The wavefunction can evolve deterministically, yet measurement produces definite outcomes. One response to this paradox is the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI): every possible outcome of a quantum event is realised, each in its own separate branch of the cosmos.

At first glance, MWI appears audacious, even elegant: no collapse is required, the equations are preserved, and determinism is restored. But this is precisely where physics’ ontological evasion comes into focus.

The evasive manoeuvre

MWI resolves the problem of quantum indeterminacy not by confronting relation or possibility, but by multiplying reality ad infinitum. Instead of asking how a single world actualises from potential, physics declares: all worlds are actualised somewhere. The universe is no longer a single unfolding process; it is an infinite tree of eternally branching, non-interacting realities.

This manoeuvre preserves formalism at all costs. It allows equations to remain untouched, but it does so by evacuating the question of how relation operates in a single, coherent cosmos.

The ontological cost

Infinity becomes a crutch. Actuality is diluted: every possible outcome exists, but nowhere in particular. Individuation is meaningless if every branch actualises every variation. Relation is flattened: each branch is self-contained, severing the very notion of perspectival alignment that gives events significance.

In effect, MWI trades a problem of indeterminacy for a problem of ontological inflation. Possibility is no longer emergent; it is exhaustively realised across a proliferation of worlds that we can never access or interact with. Reality becomes a metaphysical forest with infinite trees, none of which can be said to matter more than any other.

The epistemic collapse

MWI also undermines the practice of science. If every outcome occurs somewhere, what does it mean to perform an experiment? Predictive power loses its bite: certainty is replaced by certainty somewhere, but not here. Evidence can no longer confirm or disconfirm a theory in any meaningful sense, because all possibilities are realised. Science risks turning into an exercise in cataloguing infinite alternatives rather than understanding a coherent, actual world.

The theological return

The infinite proliferation of worlds carries an implicit theological echo. The cosmos becomes a plenitude of realities, reminiscent of divine omnipotence: everything that can happen does happen. Once again, physics substitutes an ontological miracle for relational coherence, presenting infinity as the solution to its own conceptual impasse.

A relational reframing

From a relational perspective, the paradox dissolves without recourse to infinite branching. Possibility is emergent, not pre-packaged; it actualises through perspectival and collective alignment. Only some outcomes are realised in relation to specific construals; others remain potential, constrained by the context of actualisation.

Many Worlds mistakes the indeterminacy of relation for an absence of determinacy. A relational ontology restores both coherence and openness: actuality is real, possibility is meaningful, and infinity is no longer required to save equations.

Conclusion

The Many Worlds Interpretation is an elegant evasion: infinity substitutes for relational insight. By multiplying universes, physics preserves formalism while abandoning the task of understanding how possibility unfolds in relation. The more fruitful path is not proliferation, but relational alignment: actualisation without the need for cosmic overreach.

Ontological Evasions in Physics, Part 3 Wavefunction Collapse: Smuggling Mind into Matter

Quantum mechanics introduced the wavefunction: a mathematical object encoding the probabilities of different outcomes. The formalism is clear enough, but the question has always been: what does the wavefunction mean? What is it a description of?

The orthodox answer—the so-called Copenhagen interpretation—deploys one of physics’ most enduring evasions: wavefunction collapse.

The evasive manoeuvre

The story goes like this: the wavefunction evolves deterministically according to Schrödinger’s equation, until a measurement occurs. At that moment, the wavefunction “collapses” into a definite outcome. Before measurement: superposition. After measurement: actuality.

This picture offers physicists a convenient divide. Quantum weirdness on one side, classical certainty on the other. The catch is that the divide rests on a vague and unstable category: “measurement.” What counts as a measurement? Why should the cosmos care whether a device—or a human observer—is watching?

Here the evasion is clear. Instead of reconceiving causation and relation, physics projects the indeterminacy onto the observer, as if mind itself must intervene in order for matter to be real.

The ontological cost

Wavefunction collapse imports consciousness as an unacknowledged deus ex machina. Ontology is split into two domains: one governed by smooth mathematical evolution, the other punctuated by miraculous collapse. Reality is fractured into dual regimes, joined only by the mysterious agency of “measurement.”

This is not an explanation but a deferral: a refusal to confront what possibility and actuality mean in relation. By outsourcing the problem to “mind,” physics preserves its equations at the cost of ontological incoherence.

The epistemic collapse

Science depends on the reproducibility of observation. Yet if reality hinges on “measurement” in some undefined sense, the ground of scientific practice is eroded. Collapse theory implies that experimenters are not probing reality, but actively conjuring it into existence by their acts of observation. Inquiry then loses its neutrality and becomes an act of ontological magic.

The theological return

Again, the supposed hard-headed stance conceals theological traces. The collapse postulate reinstates a metaphysics of miracle: smooth order interrupted by sudden intervention. The observer becomes a priestly figure, mediating between potential and actual, a stand-in for divine agency.

A relational reframing

From a relational perspective, the puzzle dissolves. The wavefunction is not a ghostly object waiting for collapse, but a construal of perspectival potential. Measurement is not an ontological rupture but a perspectival alignment: the actualisation of relation between system and context. Possibility does not end in collapse; it unfolds into new individuations.

The real lesson of quantum mechanics is not that mind conjures matter, but that actuality is always perspectival: emergent from relational construal, not from a hidden dualism.

Conclusion

Wavefunction collapse is physics’ way of smuggling mind into matter while pretending to keep ontology clean. By placing the burden on “measurement,” it evades the deeper question of how possibility actualises within relation.

The alternative is to abandon the collapse story altogether: not mind intervening in matter, but relation unfolding into actuality without need for miracles or evasions.

Ontological Evasions in Physics, Part 1 Superdeterminism: Physics in a Straitjacket of Its Own Making

Bell’s theorem posed a sharp dilemma for physics. If quantum correlations cannot be explained by local hidden variables, then physics must either accept some form of nonlocality or rethink its ontology of relation and possibility. For many, this was an intolerable choice: they wanted to preserve the sacred image of locality without conceding anything to a deeper reworking of ontology. Out of this tension came a strange proposal: superdeterminism.

The superdeterminist escape

Superdeterminism suggests that the “choices” made in an experiment—the settings of detectors, the generation of random numbers, even the experimenter’s own decisions—are not genuinely open possibilities at all. They were already determined from the very beginning of the universe. The appearance of freedom, of contingency, of probing reality through experiment, is just that: appearance. Everything, down to the last twitch of an electron and the last flick of a human finger on a switch, was written in advance.

This saves locality, but at what cost?

The ontological price

Superdeterminism collapses the openness of possibility into the closure of necessity. It denies that relation can ever actualise anything new. Individuation is flattened into a cosmic fate; construal is rendered illusory. The world becomes nothing but the replay of a pre-ordained script, written once and for all at the “beginning.”

Such an ontology is not simply deterministic. It is paranoid: no event can escape its already-fixed trajectory. The entire unfolding of the cosmos is a puppet theatre where both puppets and puppeteers were wired from the start.

The epistemic collapse

Physics prides itself on being an experimental science. But if superdeterminism is true, then experiment is no longer an open probe into nature. Every result was predetermined to vindicate precisely the theories we already hold. Evidence cannot arbitrate between competing accounts, because every outcome has been scripted to deliver one specific confirmation.

In this way, superdeterminism undermines the very epistemic practice of science. It turns inquiry into tautology, an elaborate self-confirmation ritual disguised as investigation.

The theological return

Ironically, the move that presents itself as the most “hard-nosed” of physics is structurally theological. Superdeterminism smuggles back in the figure of the absolute author, who wrote the entire cosmic play in advance. All questions, all objections, all experiments are lines already inscribed in the script.

This is not science emancipating itself from metaphysics, but science returning—blindly and unknowingly—to a metaphysics of divine preordination.

A relational reframing

The dilemma posed by Bell does not require such self-defeating solutions. From a relational ontology, possibility is not pre-scripted. It emerges perspectivally through the collective actualisation of relation. Correlations without local causation are not “spooky” once causation itself is re-understood as alignment across perspectival horizons.

The locality vs nonlocality axis misleads because it presumes a fixed grid of independent entities joined by causal arrows. A relational framing begins instead with relation itself: construal scales, individuates, and aligns without presupposing absolute separability. What physics experiences as paradox is simply the fracture line of its own ontological assumptions.

Conclusion

Superdeterminism is not a daring new proposal. It is physics retreating into a straitjacket of its own making. Faced with the challenge of Bell’s theorem, physics could choose to rethink its ontology of relation and possibility. Instead, superdeterminism denies openness altogether.

The more fruitful move is to accept what superdeterminism cannot: that reality is not a closed script but a collective and perspectival unfolding of relation.