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 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: Series Conclusion From Evasion to Relational Insight

Across eight instalments, we have traced a consistent pattern in modern physics: when confronted with paradox, anomaly, or limitation, physics often chooses not to rethink its ontology, but to evade it. Superdeterminism collapses possibility into predestination. The block universe freezes time. Wavefunction collapse smuggles mind into matter. Many Worlds multiplies reality to infinity. The simulation hypothesis outsources actuality to an external programmer. QBism retreats into the observer’s beliefs. The string landscape proliferates possibilities without selection. Dark matter and dark energy stand in as invisible placeholders.

These evasions share a common logic: preserve formalism, secure predictive apparatus, and avoid confronting the question of relation—how actuality, possibility, and perspectival alignment are instantiated in the world. In doing so, physics repeatedly sacrifices ontological coherence for technical convenience.

The cost of evasion

Each manoeuvre carries epistemic consequences. Experiment becomes tautological, observation collapses into belief, infinity replaces relational actualisation, and unexplained placeholders dominate explanatory structures. Even when formal success is achieved, understanding suffers: we no longer apprehend how reality unfolds, only that it conforms to equations.

The theological undertones recur across these cases. Whether framed as pre-scripted determinism, divine authorship in Many Worlds, simulation programmers, or invisible cosmic agents, physics repeatedly imports the structure of omnipotence in order to rescue its formalisms. What is presented as rigorous reasoning is often an implicit metaphysics in disguise.

Relational insight

Relational ontology offers a coherent alternative. It foregrounds relation itself: actuality is perspectival, possibility emerges through interaction, and constraints are not external impositions but features of relational alignment. Measurement, temporal unfolding, and emergent structure are intelligible not because of hidden authors, infinite worlds, or invisible matter, but because relation operates collectively across scales.

This framework dissolves paradoxes without mutilating ontology. Superdeterminism’s fatalism is replaced by emergent possibility; the block universe’s frozen time by perspectival becoming; wavefunction collapse by actualisation across relational construals; Many Worlds’ plenitude by selective emergent outcomes; simulation and QBism by relational alignment rather than external or subjective authorship; string landscape by structured, emergent possibility; dark matter and dark energy by large-scale relational interactions.

The lesson

The pattern is clear: physics often chooses evasion over reflection, sacrificing ontological clarity for technical expedience. Recognising these evasions is the first step toward a more coherent understanding of reality. By privileging relation over abstraction, emergence over pre-scripted determinism, and perspectival actualisation over infinite speculation, we reclaim both intelligibility and explanatory power.

Ontological evasion is avoidable. Relational insight is unavoidable.

Ontological Evasions in Physics, Part 7 The String Landscape: Everything, Therefore Nothing

String theory promised a unified framework for fundamental physics. Yet it has faced a profound challenge: the theory allows for an enormous multiplicity of possible vacuum states—so-called string vacua—each corresponding to a different set of physical constants and laws. The result is the string landscape, a staggeringly large collection of potential universes.

At first glance, this seems like a solution: every observed set of constants exists somewhere in the landscape, so there is no need to explain why our universe is “fine-tuned.” But the move is a classic ontological evasion.

The evasive manoeuvre

Faced with the problem of contingency, the string landscape abandons constraint. Instead of asking why this universe, with these relations and actualisations, emerges, physics declares that everything exists somewhere. The vastness of the landscape is invoked as a shield against the need for explanation: if all possibilities are realised, then nothing is truly contingent, and no relational structure requires deeper justification.

This manoeuvre preserves the mathematical framework, but it does so by converting the universe into a multiversal catalogue. Reality becomes a bookkeeping exercise, with actualisation replaced by exhaustive potentiality.

The ontological cost

The string landscape flattens relational actuality. Possibility is no longer perspectival or emergent; it is pre-encoded across an infinite field of vacua. Individuation loses meaning: all configurations exist, so there is no horizon of selection, no perspectival alignment that gives a particular outcome significance.

In effect, the landscape transforms ontology into sheer plenitude. Everything is possible, but nothing is relationally grounded. Actualisation is irrelevant because all potential outcomes coexist somewhere in the multiverse.

The epistemic collapse

Scientific practice relies on the ability to discriminate, to test, to falsify. The string landscape renders these procedures impotent. If every outcome is realised somewhere, then no observation can confirm or disconfirm theory in the conventional sense. Predictive power collapses into the vacuity of “it exists somewhere,” leaving physics stranded in an epistemic fog.

The theological return

Once again, what is dressed as physics mirrors a theological structure. The landscape functions as a cosmic omnipotence: all possibilities exist, as if the universe were a divine archive of potentialities. Fine-tuning is explained not by relational actualisation but by the inevitability of exhaustive plenitude.

A relational reframing

A relational ontology resolves the puzzle without invoking infinity. Possibility emerges perspectivally through actualisation: certain configurations occur because relational alignment permits them. Constraints are real, relational, and context-dependent; they are not pre-encoded across a multiverse.

Actualisation is meaningful precisely because it is selective. The richness of possibility is preserved, but it is never an undifferentiated plenitude. Relational thinking restores coherence: the cosmos is structured, contingent, and intelligible, not merely a catalogued infinity.

Conclusion

The string landscape is physics’ most extravagant ontological evasion yet: an appeal to plenitude substitutes for relational insight. By declaring that everything exists somewhere, it abandons the task of explaining how actuality emerges within relation. A relational reframing restores both intelligibility and empirical efficacy: possibility is emergent, actualisation is selective, and infinity is unnecessary.

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.