Inside the Event Horizon II: Construal of Space and Time

In the previous post, we explored what it means to say that construal persists inside an event horizon. From the perspective of relational ontology, an event horizon does not annihilate meaning but encloses it, partitioning the scope of reflexive alignment. Inside the horizon, construal continues, though cut off from perspectives outside.

The natural next question is: what, then, of space and time themselves? Do they dissolve, distort, or vanish for an observer inside the horizon? Or are they construed in ways continuous with those outside?

---

The Outside Perspective: Theoretical Construal

From outside an event horizon, space and time beyond it are not phenomena. They cannot be actualised in perspective. What can be offered are second-order construals: mathematical projections, theoretical models, symbolic extrapolations. General relativity, for example, predicts time dilation, trajectories toward singularity, and other dynamics. But these are not lived phenomena; they are symbolic construals imagined from beyond the cut.

Thus, for the outside perspective, “space and time inside the horizon” are never phenomena. They exist only as theorised possibility, always inconstruable as experience.

---

The Inside Perspective: Phenomenal Continuity

From inside the horizon, the situation is different. Space and time are still fully construed as phenomena. They remain the structuring dimensions of experience, as they do outside. Nothing in the act of crossing the horizon obliterates phenomenal construal.

Yet this continuity is horizon-conditioned:

• Space is construed relationally — near/far, here/there, path/distance. But it is enclosed. The horizon marks the absolute limit: there is no “outside” in the phenomenal domain. The geometry of construal persists, but the map ends at the boundary.

• Time is construed sequentially — before/after, unfolding events, trajectories. But it is oriented toward the horizon as an ultimate limit. Physics describes this as an inexorable falling inward, but from a relational standpoint, what matters is that time continues to be lived and construed, even if bounded in scope.

For inside perspectives, then, space and time remain ordinary phenomena. They are not alien or different in kind from those construed outside. They are simply bounded within a sealed domain.

---

The Asymmetry of Construal

The crucial distinction is perspectival:

• Outside looking in: space and time beyond the horizon are inconstruable as phenomena, available only as symbolic imagination.

• Inside living it: space and time are construable as phenomena, fully actualised in experience, but horizon-bounded and non-alignable with outside construals.

Thus, the asymmetry lies not in the nature of space and time themselves, but in the structure of construal.

---

Ontological Payoff

This has important consequences. It suggests that event horizons should not be treated as universal “tearing points” of spacetime. The difference is not between space and time existing or not existing, but between perspectives differently positioned relative to the cut of construal.

• For the outside: space and time “inside” are theoretical, symbolic projections.

• For the inside: space and time remain phenomenal realities, but sealed against reflexive alignment with outside perspectives.

Horizons, then, do not dissolve meaning. They partition the reach of construal, enclosing domains of space and time without annihilating them.

---

Closing Thought

From the standpoint of relational ontology, the event horizon becomes less a rupture in the fabric of spacetime, and more a perspectival structuring of possibility. Space and time do not vanish there. They continue to be lived, but lived within the sealed enclosure of the horizon — phenomena that remain actual, but only for those inside.

Inside the Event Horizon I: Construal and Meaning Beyond Perspective

When we think of a black hole, we often imagine the event horizon as a barrier: a boundary where everything is lost, where meaning collapses. Relational ontology gives us a different picture. Horizons do not annihilate construal; they partition it, structuring what can and cannot be actualised from different perspectives.

---

Perspectival Boundaries

An event horizon is perspectival. From outside, it marks the absolute limit of what can be instantiated as phenomenon. Nothing beyond that boundary can be construed or aligned with from an external vantage.

Inside, however, the situation changes. Construal continues — phenomena are still actualised, meanings still emerge, and perspectives can still align. The horizon does not dissolve meaning; it encloses and partitions it.

---

Construal Inside the Horizon

Inside the event horizon, construals are fully active, but their relational structure is shaped in three ways:

1. Sealed relationality
   Construals within the horizon can align with one another, but they cannot extend outward. Internal observers share a common space of alignment, yet this shared space is cut off from the outside world.

2. Asymmetric value
   From the outside, these internal construals are inconstruable. They are fully real for those inside, but inaccessible to external perspectives. This asymmetry shows that actuality is perspectival: what is real for one observer may be structurally invisible to another.

3. Horizon-conditioned actuality
   Every construal inside is implicitly bounded by the horizon. Even if observers inside do not recognise it reflexively, the horizon defines the limits of possibility for internal alignment. Construals are contained, but still robust and relational.

---

Shared Construals Inside

If two or more observers occupy the same internal region, their zones of construal overlap. They can share, negotiate, and align meanings fully within that bounded space. The event horizon does not erase relationality; it reconfigures it, making the horizon a semiotic enclosure rather than a void.

---

Horizons as Relational Cuts

This perspective reframes how we think about boundaries and limits:

• They are not walls that destroy meaning.

• They are relational cuts that structure where and how meaning can circulate.

• They highlight the perspectival asymmetry inherent in actualisation: internal construals are inaccessible externally, but fully real internally.

The event horizon thus becomes a fascinating model of bounded semiotic spaces, where phenomena are fully active yet relationally sealed. It reminds us that meaning is not universal, but situated, perspectival, and structured by the very boundaries that define it.

3 At the Limits: Horizons, Singularities, and the Architecture of Construal

In previous posts, we drew a line between event horizons and singularities — two concepts often paired in physics, but which belong to very different ontological orders. Horizons structure what can actualise as experience; singularities mark the breakdown of systemic description.

It is worth taking a step back and asking: what does this distinction reveal, not just about physics, but about how reality is construed?

---

Two Kinds of Limit

From the perspective of relational ontology, horizons and singularities are not parallel features of the cosmos. They are different kinds of limit:

• Event horizons are perspectival. They cut across actualisation, marking what can and cannot be construed as phenomenon. They belong to the phenomenal order of construed events.

• Singularities are systemic. They mark the collapse of the theory of potential itself — the point where a grammar ceases to generate coherent instances. They belong to the systemic order, not the phenomenal one.

To conflate them is to collapse two distinct dimensions of limit: the limit of construal (horizons) and the limit of theory (singularities).

---

The Ontological Payoff

Why does this matter? Because each limit tells us something different about reality:

• Horizons remind us that all experience is perspectival. No construal is total; every event has a horizon.

• Singularities remind us that no symbolic system is complete. Every theory has its points of collapse, its markers of incompleteness.

Together, they point to a reflexive cosmos: a reality whose structures appear only through construal, and whose systemic descriptions inevitably carry their own conditions of failure.

---

Beyond Reification

When we treat singularities as “things” lurking inside black holes, we mistake a breakdown in our symbolic architectures for a feature of the universe itself. When we treat horizons as “walls” or “membranes,” we risk mistaking a perspectival cut for an absolute partition.

Relational ontology resists these reifications by insisting on ontological clarity: horizons are real as phenomenal boundaries; singularities are real as reflexive markers of theory’s limits — but neither is a thing-in-itself.

---

Toward a Relational Cosmology

By drawing these distinctions, we begin to see how a relational cosmology might unfold. Reality is not punctured by singularities nor walled off by horizons. Instead:

• Horizons shape the perspectival structure of construal.

• Singularities expose the incompleteness of systemic architectures.

Both are reminders that meaning and matter are inseparable, and that our theories of the cosmos are as reflexively bound as the cosmos itself.

2 The Ontological Status of Singularities: Limits of Theory, Not Features of Reality

Few words in physics inspire as much awe — and as much confusion — as singularity. To say that spacetime “contains” a singularity sounds as if nature itself harbours an abyss, a place where reality collapses in on itself. But the ontology of singularities is far more subtle.

Relational ontology offers a way to make sense of them: not as entities or events, but as limit conditions of systemic description. Singularities mark the breakdown of our theories, not the breakdown of the universe.

---

From Geometry to Gravity: A Brief Lineage

The word singularity entered mathematics well before physics. In geometry and analysis, it referred to points where a function misbehaves: a denominator goes to zero, a curve becomes non-differentiable, a value tends toward infinity. These are not physical ruptures but mathematical irregularities, artefacts of the descriptive system.

Einstein’s general relativity imported this term into cosmology. In the equations that describe spacetime curvature, singularities appear where the mathematics yields infinities — such as the centre of an idealised black hole, or the initial condition of a universe extrapolated back in time.

The rhetorical leap was quick: if the equations describe reality, then perhaps reality itself contains singularities. But this leap confuses the breakdown of a symbolic system with the structure of the universe.

---

Singularities as Systemic Collapse

Relational ontology reframes this confusion by holding firm to the stratification of systemic potential, instantiated event, and reflexive construal.

• Systemic level: A singularity belongs here, not as a structured potential, but as its absence. It is where the grammar of the theory ceases to generate coherent instances.

• Phenomenal level: There are no singularities here. No event can instantiate a singularity; it is not a phenomenon, nor even instantiable as one.

• Metaphenomenal level: As a reflexive concept, “singularity” signals where our symbolic architectures fail. It is a name for the limits of meaning-generation within a theory.

Thus, the singularity is not an object awaiting discovery inside a black hole. It is a marker of systemic breakdown — the point where our construal machinery exceeds its own reach.

---

The Temptation of Reification

Why, then, are singularities so often treated as if they were “real”? Partly because physics, in its rhetoric, often slides between levels: from equations to phenomena, from models to reality. To say “the singularity is at the centre of the black hole” is seductive shorthand — but ontologically incoherent.

This temptation reveals an epistemic fallacy: mistaking limits of description for features of the world. Relational ontology cuts against this by insisting on perspectival and systemic clarity.

---

What Singularities Really Tell Us

Rather than windows into cosmic abysses, singularities are mirrors. They reflect back the limits of our symbolic architectures, the points where our grammars of construal falter.

• They remind us that no system is complete: every theory of potential has points of collapse.

• They challenge us to seek new systemic architectures — as quantum gravity seeks to replace the collapsing structures of general relativity.

• They demonstrate that failure in theory is not failure in reality, but an index of the reflexive relation between meaning and matter.

---

Relational Ontology’s Reframe

From this perspective, the ontological status of singularities is clear:

• Not physical entities. Nothing “exists” at a singularity.

• Not phenomenal events. Nothing is actualised as phenomenon.

• Mathematical artefacts. Singularities are signs of incoherence in systemic description.

• Reflexive markers. They show us where our theories betray their own incompleteness.

The singularity is not a hole in reality. It is a hole in our equations.

---

Conclusion: Beyond the Singularity

The fascination with singularities is not misplaced — but their true importance lies in what they reveal about our construals, not about spacetime itself.

To take singularities seriously is to treat them as ontological markers of the limits of theory. They are not the hidden depths of the cosmos, but the exposed seams of our symbolic architectures. In recognising this, we move beyond the reification of singularities and toward a relational cosmology that treats meaning, matter, and systemic collapse on their own terms.

1 Beyond the Horizon: Singularities, Event Horizons, and the Limits of Construal

Few concepts in contemporary physics capture the imagination like the singularity and the event horizon. They are often paired together in accounts of black holes, as if one naturally implies the other: the singularity hidden behind the veil of the horizon, the horizon shielding the universe from the singularity.

Yet from the perspective of relational ontology, these two terms point to radically different kinds of entity. One belongs to the structure of phenomena as construed. The other belongs to the limits of systemic theory. Bringing them together under the same heading risks blurring not just physical categories, but ontological ones.

---

The Event Horizon: A Perspectival Cut

An event horizon is, at its core, a perspectival condition. It marks the point beyond which no light, no signal, no construal can cross back to an observer.

• In relational terms, the event horizon is a perspectival cut: a boundary that distinguishes what can be instantiated as phenomenon from what cannot.

• It is not an absolute property of the universe, but a relational alignment between observer, potential, and construal.

• What lies beyond the horizon is not “unreal” — but it is unconstruable from that position.

In this sense, the event horizon is part of the architecture of actualisation: it structures what counts as event. Horizons are real, but they are real as reflexive boundaries of construal, not as things-in-themselves.

---

The Singularity: A Collapse of Systemic Description

A singularity, by contrast, is something altogether different.

In mathematics, a singularity arises when the equations that generate potential cease to yield coherent results: a value tends to infinity, a denominator vanishes, the structure of description collapses. In general relativity, the “singularity at the centre of a black hole” is precisely this: a point where the theory’s grammar breaks down.

• A singularity is not a phenomenon: nothing is instantiated, nothing is actualised.

• A singularity belongs to the systemic level: it is a limit of the theory of possible instances, not of the instances themselves.

• Its ontological status is that of a mathematical artefact, a reflexive marker of incoherence in our symbolic architectures.

From this perspective, the singularity is less a window into the heart of matter than a mirror held up to our theories. It reveals where our systemic construal has exceeded its own scope.

---

Distinguishing the Two

Relational ontology makes clear that singularity and event horizon are not parallel terms.

• The event horizon is a perspectival phenomenon: the edge of construal, the limit of what can actualise as experience.

• The singularity is a systemic failure point: the limit of the theory of meanings, where our symbolic machinery ceases to generate coherent potential.

One belongs to actualisation, the other to systemic breakdown. One structures events, the other interrupts theories.

---

Why This Matters

The danger of conflating horizons and singularities is more than semantic. It risks collapsing distinct ontological orders: mistaking a breakdown in theory for a property of the world, or mistaking a perspectival limit for an absolute void.

From the perspective of relational ontology:

• Horizons remind us that construal is always perspectival, bounded, reflexively structured.

• Singularities remind us that no symbolic system is complete, that every grammar of potential has its own conditions of collapse.

Taken together, they are not signs of mystery hidden in the cosmos, but signs of the reflexive limits of our own alignment with reality.

---

Toward a Relational Cosmology

The language of singularities and horizons need not be abandoned — but it must be re-situated. In a relational cosmology:

• Horizons are constitutive: they belong to the phenomenology of experience itself.

• Singularities are diagnostic: they belong to the reflexive critique of our systemic theories.

To confuse the two is to mistake the edges of construal for the collapse of reality itself. To distinguish them is to recognise that the universe is not broken where our equations fail, nor absent where our perspective ends.

It is we who are always cutting, construing, theorising — and it is in the reflexive recognition of these limits that reality itself comes into view.

4 Physics’ Ontological Patches: Seeing the Pattern

Over the past three posts, we have traced a remarkable pattern in the conceptual architecture of physics. From the early universe to the quantum realm, physicists have repeatedly introduced what we might call ontological patches: ad hoc entities or processes invented to preserve coherence in a framework that misconstrues potential as history and construal as substance.

Let us take stock of the trilogy:

1. Inflation and Entanglement

   • In cosmology, inflation was introduced to reconcile the horizon, flatness, and monopole problems.

   • In quantum theory, faster-than-light signalling appears to threaten causality.

   • Both “solutions” invoke hidden mediation — a field or a signal — to enforce alignment that is already intrinsic in the system-as-potential.

2. Dark Matter and Wavefunction Collapse

   • Galactic rotation curves, gravitational lensing, and cosmic acceleration prompted the invention of dark matter and dark energy.

   • Superpositions of quantum states prompted the invention of wavefunction collapse.

   • Both cases posit hidden entities or processes to account for coherence that is actually built into the perspectival cut.

3. Multiverse and Many-Worlds

   • Fine-tuning of constants, inflationary patchwork, and the string landscape inspired the multiverse.

   • Quantum superposition inspired many-worlds branching.

   • Both introduce multiplicity — more universes, more branches — to enforce alignment that relational ontology already provides in a single potential actualised by construal.

---

Seeing the Pattern

Across these cases, the same structural move recurs:

1. Misread potential as literal history.

2. Treat coherence as something external to the system.

3. Invent an entity, process, or multiplicity to patch the apparent misalignment.

Relational ontology dissolves the need for all these patches. It reminds us that:

• System is structured potential. Coherence is intrinsic, not imposed.

• Instance is a perspectival cut. Actuality is given in the cut itself.

• Construal is constitutive. Reality is aligned, not mediated or multiplied.

---

Beyond Physics

What emerges from this trilogy is a meta-insight: the paradoxes and patches of physics are not isolated curiosities; they are symptoms of an ontological stance that conflates potential with history and construal with substance. Once we adopt a relational lens, the puzzles dissolve, and the cosmos — from galaxies to quantum events — is seen as a seamless architecture of alignment.

In this light, physics is not a record of hidden mechanisms or multiple universes, but a reflection of the ways in which construal shapes actuality. The cosmos is coherent, not because of invisible patches, but because coherence is built into the very act of actualising potential.

---

Physics’ Ontological Patches: Trilogy Summary

Domain	Problem / Puzzle	Patch Introduced	Relational Dissolution
Cosmology	Horizon, flatness, monopole	Inflation & inflaton field	Coherence is perspectival; uniformity, flatness, and absence of relics arise from the cut of potential, not a field.
Quantum	Faster-than-light correlations	Hidden signals / nonlocality	Entanglement is systemic alignment; correlation does not require transmission.
Cosmology	Galactic rotation, lensing, cosmic acceleration	Dark matter & dark energy	Apparent “missing” mass/energy is a misconstrual; alignment is intrinsic to the instance.
Quantum	Wavefunction measurement	Collapse	Actualisation is the perspectival cut itself; no process is needed.
Cosmology	Fine-tuning, inflationary patches, string landscape	Multiverse	Multiplicity is unnecessary; constants and structures are actualised within a single construal.
Quantum	Quantum superposition	Many-worlds branching	Outcomes are cuts across potential; reality does not multiply to ensure coherence.

---

Key Pattern Across Cases

1. Potential misread as history → creates apparent misalignments.

2. Coherence treated as external → demands a patch (field, process, multiplicity).

3. Patch introduced → inflation, dark matter, collapse, multiverse, many-worlds.

4. Relational insight → coherence and actuality arise in the cut; patches are unnecessary.

3 Multiverse and Many-Worlds: Reality Proliferated

Physics, confronted with anomalies and paradoxes, sometimes responds not by inventing hidden fields or unobservable processes, but by multiplying reality itself. Cosmology proposes the multiverse, quantum theory proposes the many-worlds interpretation. At first glance these may appear unrelated: one concerns distant universes beyond observational reach, the other concerns branching outcomes of quantum events. Yet both are the same ontological manoeuvre: a proliferation of actualities to preserve coherence in a misconstrued framework.

Relational ontology dissolves both cases, showing that the multiplication of universes is not required once potential and construal are properly understood.

---

The Multiverse in Cosmology

The multiverse arises from attempts to explain:

1. Fine-tuning of constants: Why do fundamental constants allow complex structures and life?

2. Inflationary patchwork: Certain inflation models suggest “pocket universes” form independently.

3. String theory landscape: Thousands of vacua exist, each corresponding to a different universe.

The multiverse is posited to account for coherence that our own universe seems “too lucky” to possess. In other words, it is a patch to the problem of apparent fine-tuning.

---

Many-Worlds in Quantum Theory

Quantum mechanics, confronted with superposition and measurement, proposes many-worlds:

• Each quantum event spawns a branching of reality, so all possible outcomes occur.

• This eliminates the need for wavefunction collapse — every possibility becomes actual in some branch.

• Yet these branches are unobservable, posited solely to preserve the illusion of a deterministic evolution of universal wavefunctions.

---

A Parallel Table

Problem	Mainstream Framing	Patch / Solution	Relational Dissolution
Fine-tuning of constants	Constants appear “just right” for complex structures.	Multiverse: innumerable universes with different constants, we exist in a lucky one.	Fine-tuning is a misread: constants are part of the construal of potential; no alternate universes are needed.
Inflationary patchwork	Inflation may create independent “pocket universes.”	Multiverse: multiple universes form naturally.	“Universes” are perspectival instances actualised in a single potential; multiplicity is not required.
String landscape	Thousands of vacua imply many universes.	Multiverse: all vacua exist.	Landscape is systemic potential; actualisation is cut, not proliferation.
Quantum superposition	A particle is in multiple states until observed.	Many-worlds: every outcome occurs in some branch.	Measurement is the perspectival cut; actuality is constituted in construal, not by branching realities.

---

The Ontological Fallacy

As in previous cases, the fallacy is consistent:

• Potential mistaken for history: the multiverse and many-worlds treat potential outcomes as literally real in separate spatiotemporal locations.

• Coherence mistaken for multiplicity: reality is “duplicated” to enforce alignment that is already guaranteed by the cut.

---

Relational Dissolution

Relational ontology reframes both puzzles:

• The universe (or “multiverse”) is a single system of potential; instances are perspectival cuts actualising this potential.

• Quantum outcomes are not separate worlds but different aspects of the same construal.

• Multiplying universes or branches is unnecessary; coherence is intrinsic to alignment, not to replication.

---

Beyond Proliferation

Where physics has responded with episodes, hidden entities, and proliferated realities, relational ontology responds with a shift in perspective:

• System as structured potential: multiplicity is latent, not literal.

• Instance as perspectival cut: actuality is given in the cut itself.

• Construal as constitutive: coherence does not require repetition, propagation, or duplication.

The multiverse and many-worlds are therefore not discoveries about hidden or branching realities, but symptoms of the same misalignment that inflation, dark matter, and wavefunction collapse reveal. Once reality is reconstrued relationally, the proliferation of universes dissolves: there is only the actualisation of potential, fully aligned in construal.

2 Dark Matter and Wavefunction Collapse: Two Faces of the Same Patch

Physics is littered with mysteries that seem to demand hidden explanations. In cosmology, entire sectors of the universe are filled with invisible matter and energy. In quantum theory, probabilities are forced to become certainties by means of an unobservable collapse. These may look like unrelated puzzles, but in fact they are parallel symptoms of the same ontological misalignment.

Both “dark matter/energy” and “wavefunction collapse” are narrative patches — stopgaps invented to restore coherence in frameworks that misconstrue potential as history and construal as substance. Relational ontology does not solve these puzzles on their own terms. It dissolves them.

---

The Dark Sector of Cosmology

Observations of galaxies and cosmic expansion appear not to fit the predictions of standard models:

1. Galactic rotation curves: Stars on the outer edges of galaxies move too fast to be bound by the gravity of visible matter.

2. Gravitational lensing: Light bends around galaxy clusters more than visible mass can explain.

3. Cosmic acceleration: The universe’s expansion is speeding up, rather than slowing down.

To make sense of these anomalies, physicists posit vast quantities of unseen dark matter and pervasive dark energy. These entities have never been directly detected. They exist solely to patch the gap between construal (the equations) and instance (the observations).

---

The Collapse of the Wavefunction

Quantum theory describes particles as wavefunctions — distributions of potential outcomes. But when we measure, we never see distributions; we see definite outcomes. To account for this, physicists posit a mysterious collapse of the wavefunction: a sudden, unobservable transition from probability to actuality.

This “collapse” is never observed. It is an ad hoc story that preserves the fiction of an independent, unconstrued reality that then “becomes actual” under measurement.

---

A Parallel Table

Problem	Mainstream Framing	Patch / Solution	Relational Dissolution
Galactic rotation curves	Stars move too fast for visible matter to hold them.	Dark matter: unseen mass provides extra gravity.	Gravity is a construal of potential, not a literal force needing invisible carriers. Coherence lies in construal alignment, not hidden matter.
Gravitational lensing	Light bends more than visible mass can explain.	Dark matter adds invisible mass to account for bending.	Lensing is part of the same perspectival cut. No need for unseen matter to “fix” the discrepancy.
Cosmic acceleration	Expansion of the universe is speeding up.	Dark energy drives acceleration.	Expansion is a construal of potential actualised in the instance, not a literal force requiring invisible fuel.
Wavefunction measurement	Potentials yield definite outcomes at observation.	Collapse: unobservable transition enforces actuality.	Measurement is the perspectival cut itself. Actualisation is not a process but a construal.

---

The Ontological Fallacy

What unites these patches is the same misstep:

• Potential mistaken for substance. Dark matter and the wavefunction are both systems of potential, misconstrued as literal fields or stuff.

• Coherence mistaken for process. Dark energy and wavefunction collapse are both invented processes to explain why actuality appears coherent.

---

Relational Dissolution

In relational ontology, system is potential, and instance is a perspectival cut. Coherence is intrinsic to construal, not something imposed by hidden stuff or secret processes.

• Galaxies rotate coherently because cosmic alignment is construed as such, not because invisible matter is lurking unseen.

• Measurements yield definite outcomes because actuality is the cut itself, not the result of collapse.

Both dark matter/energy and wavefunction collapse are attempts to save a misconstrued ontology. Once we stop treating potential as history and construal as substance, their necessity evaporates.

---

Beyond the Dark and the Collapsed

Just as inflation and entanglement point to the same boundary, so too do the dark sector and collapse. Cosmology and quantum theory are tracing parallel outlines of the same ontological limit.

Neither hidden matter nor hidden processes are needed. What is needed is a reconstrual of reality itself:

• System as structured potential.

• Instance as perspectival cut.

• Construal as constitutive.

From this perspective, the cosmos is not full of invisible matter and mysterious collapses. It is full of meaning, actualised in alignment. The “dark” and the “collapsed” are not features of reality but symptoms of misalignment. Once re-aligned, they dissolve — and reality itself becomes clear.

1 Inflation and Entanglement: Parallel Misconstruals

Cosmology and quantum theory often appear to be worlds apart. One looks outward, to the earliest moments of the universe; the other looks inward, to the most minute alignments of matter and energy. Yet both disciplines have generated strikingly similar “problems” — and both have resorted to equally ad hoc “solutions.”

The case of inflation in cosmology and the case of faster-than-light signalling in quantum entanglement expose the same ontological faultline. Each problem arises from the literalisation of potential as if it were a physical history, and each is patched by positing hidden processes or entities to restore coherence. From the perspective of relational ontology, however, neither problem needs solving. Both simply dissolve once we reconstrue system and instance in relational terms.

---

Inflation’s Three Problems

The inflationary hypothesis was introduced to resolve three puzzles in early-universe cosmology: the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the monopole problem. Each one presupposes that coherence across the cosmos requires causal mediation within spacetime.

1. Horizon problem: Different regions of the cosmic microwave background should not have been in causal contact, yet they exhibit the same temperature.

2. Flatness problem: The universe appears almost perfectly spatially flat, though small deviations in early curvature should have grown dramatically.

3. Monopole problem: Grand unified theories predict relic particles (monopoles) in the early universe, but none are observed.

Inflation “solves” these puzzles by positing an episode of exponential expansion, driven by a hypothetical scalar inflaton field, which puts regions into contact, smooths curvature, and dilutes relics.

---

Entanglement’s Dilemma

Quantum entanglement poses a parallel difficulty. Measurements on one particle are perfectly correlated with measurements on its partner, even across vast distances where no signal could travel at or below the speed of light. This looks like “spooky action at a distance,” in Einstein’s words.

Mainstream responses have included hidden variables, faster-than-light signals, or a hand-waving appeal to “nonlocality.” In each case, coherence is still conceived as something that must be mediated, enforced, or transmitted.

---

A Parallel Table

Here the symmetry becomes clear:

Problem	Mainstream Framing	Patch / Solution	Relational Dissolution
Horizon problem	Distant regions of the CMB should never have been in causal contact, yet are uniform.	Inflation: early exponential expansion put them in contact.	Uniformity is perspectival coherence of the cosmos as an instance of potential. Coherence does not require past causal contact.
Flatness problem	Universe appears finely tuned to be spatially flat. Small early deviations should grow.	Inflation: expansion “irons out” curvature.	Flatness is an alignment of construal, not a physical state needing dynamical enforcement. No fine-tuning is required.
Monopole problem	GUTs predict relics (monopoles), but none are observed.	Inflation: dilutes relics beyond observability.	Monopoles are misconstrued projections of theory as substance. Their non-appearance is not a “problem.”
FTL signalling problem	Entangled particles exhibit instantaneous correlations across spacelike separations.	Ad hoc explanations: hidden variables, superluminal signals, or “spooky action at a distance.”	Entanglement is one cut across potential. Correlation is systemic alignment, not mediated communication.

---

The Ontological Fallacy

What unites these cases is a shared fallacy:

• Literalisation of system as history: potential is misconstrued as if it were a literal sequence of states in spacetime.

• Misplaced demand for mediation: coherence is assumed to require signals, fields, or episodes to enforce alignment.

---

Relational Dissolution

In relational ontology, system is a structured potential, and instance is a perspectival cut. Spacetime itself is not a container in which causal interactions occur, but a construal that emerges with the cut. Coherence is therefore a property of alignment, not of transmission.

• The cosmic microwave background is uniform because the cosmos as instance is a single construal of potential, not because regions once exchanged photons in a hidden epoch.

• Quantum entanglement exhibits correlation because both particles are actualisations of the same system potential, not because signals dart invisibly between them.

What inflation and faster-than-light signalling problems both reveal is not a deficiency in physics, but a deficiency in ontology. By misreading potential as history and construal as substance, physics generates paradoxes that then demand ad hoc patches. When reconstrued relationally, the paradoxes vanish.

---

Beyond the Patches

The symmetry between inflation and entanglement is not accidental. It shows that cosmology and quantum theory, in their most ambitious formulations, are both pressing against the same ontological boundary. Each discipline is trying to secure coherence in a framework that misconstrues potential as a literal history, and construal as a substance in need of causal mediation.

Inflation, with its inflaton field, and quantum entanglement, with its imagined faster-than-light signals, are not discoveries about the world. They are narrative patches, artefacts of an ontology stretched past breaking point. The paradoxes they aim to resolve dissolve once we shift perspective:

• System as potential. The cosmos is not a history that must be smoothed, but a structured potential that actualises perspectivally.

• Instance as cut. Coherence is not enforced by contact, but given in the alignment of construal.

• Construal as constitutive. Reality is not waiting beneath misconstrual to be revealed, but is constituted in the very act of construing.

From this vantage, cosmology and quantum theory converge. Both are tracing the contours of the same symbolic architecture — a reflexive reality in which coherence is not transmitted but aligned, not imposed but actualised.

The problems of inflation and faster-than-light signalling are therefore not puzzles to be solved, but symptoms of an ontology to be outgrown. Relational ontology offers the way through: not a new patch, but a new cut.

✴️ When Black Holes Eat Meaning: Reframing the Information Loss Paradox

Physicists have long puzzled over the so-called black hole information loss paradox. At its heart lies an apparent contradiction: if information about a quantum system disappears into a black hole and is never recovered, then quantum theory’s principle of unitary evolution is violated. But if the information is somehow preserved, where — or what — is it, when the black hole evaporates completely?

This dilemma has launched decades of debate, sparked theories of “firewalls,” holographic universes, and quantum gravity, and remains a thorn in the side of any attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.

But from the standpoint of relational ontology, the paradox is not a problem to be solved — it is a symptom of metaphysical confusion. It arises only if we presume a world composed of pre-existing objects, a reality defined by things-in-themselves that move through time and space carrying “information” like cargo.

We take a different view. Let’s make the cut.

---

1. Information is Not a Substance

The entire paradox depends on the notion that “information” is some kind of ontological entity — a conserved stuff that must be tracked across spacetime. But in relational ontology, information is not a thing.

Information is a relational construal: a structured possibility within a symbolic system. It does not exist independently of the system that renders it meaningful. There is no “information” that can be lost — only a shift in construal where certain alignments no longer hold.

So when a black hole evaporates and the state of what fell in cannot be reconstructed — that does not mean “information has been destroyed.” It means: this event lies beyond the symbolic horizon of a prior system.

No paradox arises unless one mistakes symbolic coherence for ontological necessity.

---

2. Black Holes are Construal Events

A black hole is not an object with hidden contents. It is an event of construal breakdown — a limit condition where the semiotic architecture by which we render a world ceases to align.

The event horizon marks a cut: not between “inside” and “outside,” but between coherent construal and radical reconfiguration. It is not that something is “lost,” but that our symbolic alignment to it no longer phases with the prior system. Meaning does not disappear; it reorganises across systems.

From within one theory, this may appear as paradox or loss. But from a higher-order perspective, it is simply the evolution of possibility.

---

3. There is No Absolute Instance

The error lies in seeking a single metaphysical continuity across systems: assuming that what existed before must persist somewhere, somehow, as such. But relational ontology holds that every actuality is the perspectival instantiation of a system of potential. When that alignment is no longer possible, it’s not a loss — it’s a cut, and potentially, a transformation.

In other words: a black hole does not destroy meaning — it displaces the reflexive architecture in which that meaning was coherently rendered.

---

✧ Beyond the Paradox

The so-called information loss paradox is not a physical problem. It is a symbolic symptom: a moment where the scaffolding of construal no longer suffices to organise experience.

And that is precisely the point at which new theory begins.