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.