Ontological Evasions in Physics, Part 16 Emergent Gravity: Residual Accounting

Some approaches in modern physics propose that gravity is not fundamental but emergent from underlying microscopic degrees of freedom, such as entanglement entropy or quantum information. While this idea is mathematically and conceptually appealing, it often functions as a placeholder, evading the deeper ontological question: how does relational actualisation at the fundamental level give rise to spacetime curvature and gravitation?

The evasive manoeuvre

By invoking emergence, physics substitutes a label for an explanation. Gravity is described as a collective residual effect, rather than as the outcome of fully articulated relational dynamics. This preserves calculational and theoretical convenience while deferring the task of specifying how large-scale actualisation arises from microscopic interactions.

The ontological cost

The relational grounding of gravity is left opaque. Space, time, and curvature are treated as secondary phenomena rather than perspectival consequences of relational alignment. Possibility and constraint are obscured behind the label “emergent,” turning incompletely understood dynamics into a semantic fix rather than a reconceived ontology.

The epistemic collapse

While models can reproduce gravitational behaviour, they provide limited insight into why the system behaves as it does. Explanatory depth is sacrificed: predicting effects does not equal understanding the relational source. Science risks mistaking technical sufficiency for ontological clarity.

The theological return

Emergent gravity carries the echo of a hidden hand: a governing microstructure that, though inaccessible, produces observable order. Like a divine principle, the underlying substrate ensures coherence while remaining ontologically insulated.

A relational reframing

From a relational standpoint, gravity is not emergent in a residual sense; it is the manifestation of collective alignment across material and energetic relations. Curvature and force are perspectival outcomes of relational actualisation at multiple scales. Emergence becomes intelligible, not as a black-box label, but as the unfolding of structured possibility into actualised relational patterns.

Conclusion

Emergent gravity illustrates ontological evasion through semantic substitution. By labelling gravity as emergent without detailing the relational mechanics, physics sidesteps foundational questions. Relational ontology restores coherence: gravitational dynamics are intelligible as structured actualisation, fully grounded in relation rather than residual abstraction.

Ontological Evasions in Physics, Part 11 Inflationary Cosmology: The Cosmic Reset Button

The standard Big Bang model faced troubling puzzles. Why is the universe so homogeneous, with regions far apart in space showing the same temperature despite never having been in causal contact? Why is its geometry so flat, balanced precariously between open and closed? Why did early irregularities not derail cosmic evolution?

The solution offered was cosmic inflation: a brief epoch of exponential expansion in the first fraction of a second. Inflation stretches space so quickly that it erases irregularities, flattens curvature, and sets up conditions for the universe we observe.

Technically ingenious and phenomenologically useful, inflation is also an ontological evasion: it functions as a cosmic reset button, invoked to wash away anomalies without rethinking the relational dynamics of the early universe.

The evasive manoeuvre

Inflation posits a hypothetical field (the “inflaton”) whose energy drives hyper-expansion. This manoeuvre shifts the burden of explanation: instead of grappling with why the universe exhibits large-scale coherence, physics assumes a smoothing mechanism that conveniently resets initial conditions.

The manoeuvre is compelling because it works retrospectively: inflation explains away anomalies by erasing them. But in doing so, it substitutes hypothetical mechanism for ontological clarity.

The ontological cost

Inflation defers rather than resolves the question of relational actualisation. Homogeneity, flatness, and structure are explained by erasure: they survive because inflation eliminated other possibilities. But the deeper question—how large-scale coherence emerges from relation—is left untouched.

The early universe becomes a black box: whatever problems exist can be smoothed out by invoking inflation. Actualisation is reduced to contingency plus erasure, not emergent alignment.

The epistemic collapse

Inflation’s flexibility undermines testability. With different inflaton potentials, almost any observed feature can be retrofitted. The theory risks becoming unfalsifiable, a narrative device rather than a scientific explanation. Epistemically, it trades rigour for adaptability.

The theological return

Once again, we glimpse theology in disguise. Inflation functions as a cosmic purgation: chaos is washed away, order restored, and creation made possible. It is the physics of redemption, a secularised Genesis where an initial burst of grace makes our universe liveable.

A relational reframing

A relational ontology dissolves the need for inflation. Large-scale coherence is not imposed retrospectively but emerges perspectivally from relational alignment. Constraints are collective, not erasures of contingency. Flatness and homogeneity are features of actualisation across scales, not artefacts of a hypothetical inflationary field.

From this perspective, the puzzles inflation “solves” are reframed: they reveal the inadequacy of treating the early universe as a chaos in need of smoothing. Relation is already structured, emergent, and coherent without a reset button.

Conclusion

Inflationary cosmology is an elegant technical fix that evades the ontological challenge of cosmic coherence. By appealing to erasure, it preserves the standard model at the cost of explanatory depth. A relational reframing restores intelligibility: coherence is emergent, not imposed; actuality is selective, not reset.