Something from Nothing? Rethinking Existence in a Relational Cosmos

The question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” has haunted philosophy and cosmology for centuries. Traditionally, it assumes a metaphysical opposition: either being or non-being, existence or its absence. But from a relational ontology, this framing dissolves. What follows is not an answer to the question—but a reframing that renders it obsolete.

---

1. The Presupposition of “Nothingness”

In substance metaphysics, nothingness is imagined as a kind of empty stage:

• A spacetime devoid of matter,

• A vacuum without content,

• A zero-point before existence begins.

But this “nothing” is never truly nothing—it is a concealed something: a background, a logical placeholder, an imagined absence defined in contrast to presence.

Relational ontology denies the very coherence of this picture.

There is no “absence” of relation—only regions of minimal or unstructured constraint.

---

2. Relation as the Ground of Being

If being is relational, then:

• Existence is not the presence of substance, but the coherence of relational potential.

• What exists is not “a thing,” but a pattern of mutual affordance.

• “Nothing” is not an empty container, but a region where relational articulation has not yet stabilised.

This implies:

• There was never a transition from non-being to being,

• What emerges is increasing relational coherence, not the sudden arrival of substance into a void.

---

3. Emergence Without Origin

In standard metaphysics, explanation often seeks an origin point—a moment when “something” popped into existence.

Relational thinking displaces this:

• The focus is on emergence, not origin.

• Coherence and structure emerge through self-modulating fields of constraint.

• There is no external cause or metaphysical ground beyond relation itself.

This is not mysticism, but a refusal to ask why there is something on terms that assume things must pre-exist relations.

---

4. The Role of Coherence Thresholds

Rather than “creation,” we might speak of thresholds:

• Phases where unstructured potential condenses into structured relational networks;

• Inflection points where stable constraints begin to regulate the field;

• Emergence of directionality (e.g., time) from asymmetric affordance in the evolving system.

These are not the births of entities, but the differentiation of potential into paths of actualisation.

---

Closing

“Why is there something rather than nothing?” only appears profound within a metaphysics of substance. Once we reject that framing, the mystery shifts:

• Not from absence to presence, but from indeterminacy to structure,

• Not from void to matter, but from undifferentiated potential to coherent relation.

In a relational cosmos, existence is not something to be posited or granted—it is the name we give to the ongoing articulation of constraint and possibility.

In the next post, we’ll turn to time itself: How does relational ontology reconceive temporality? Is time fundamental, emergent, or something else altogether?