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 8 Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The Convenient Invisibility of the Unseen Majority

Cosmology confronts us with a stark mismatch between observation and theory. Galaxies rotate too quickly, the universe’s expansion accelerates, and visible matter accounts for only a fraction of cosmic mass-energy. To reconcile these anomalies, physics posits dark matter and dark energy: unseen substances that make up roughly 95% of the universe.

At first glance, this is an empirical success: equations are balanced, predictions match large-scale structure, and anomalies are “explained.” Yet these are also classic ontological placeholders—conceptual stand-ins that paper over gaps in understanding without addressing the underlying relational structure.

The evasive manoeuvre

Dark matter and dark energy are defined by what they do, not by what they are. They are inferred from their effects, yet their ontological status remains mysterious. Instead of reconceiving gravity, inertia, or large-scale relational dynamics, physics posits invisible substances to absorb inconsistency.

This manoeuvre preserves the formal apparatus of cosmology while evading the deeper question: how does relational actualisation operate at cosmic scales? The universe is not fully understood; it is “patched” with placeholders.

The ontological cost

By relying on dark matter and dark energy as explanatory crutches, physics suspends the need for relational coherence. Most of the cosmos becomes an unknowable reservoir: mass-energy that acts but cannot be directly individuated, related, or construed.

Relation is reduced to observable interaction. Possibility and alignment are subordinated to the necessity of filling the gaps in equations. Actuality is incomplete: the universe is mostly ghostly, inferred rather than relationally grounded.

The epistemic collapse

If 95% of reality is unknown in principle, then predictive and explanatory power is undermined. Models are constrained by observation, yet most of what matters remains invisible. Explanations risk becoming tautological: “We cannot see it, but it must exist to make the equations work.” Science teeters between empirical rigor and speculative bookkeeping.

The theological return

Once more, what appears as scientific problem-solving echoes theological structures. Dark matter and dark energy function as invisible agents ensuring cosmic order. They guarantee consistency where relational understanding is incomplete, much like a divine hand maintaining harmony in a partially inscrutable cosmos.

A relational reframing

From a relational perspective, the anomalies motivating dark matter and dark energy may signal a misapprehension of large-scale relational dynamics, not the existence of hidden substances. Gravitation, inertia, and cosmological expansion are emergent phenomena arising from collective alignment across scales.

In this view, the unseen majority is not literally invisible matter, but a domain of relational constraints and interactions yet fully mapped. Actualisation is not suspended; it is misinterpreted. Possibility and constraint operate relationally, and the cosmos can be intelligible without invisible placeholders.

Conclusion

Dark matter and dark energy are physics’ most conspicuous ontological placeholders: solutions that maintain equations while evading relational understanding. A relational reframing restores coherence and intelligibility, emphasising that cosmic structure emerges from actualised relations, not from unseen entities conjured to fill gaps.