In the legacy of classical physics, universality has often been taken to mean invariance: the idea that certain principles or quantities are the same everywhere, at all times, in all frames. Newton’s laws were considered universal in this sense. Even after their revision by relativity and quantum theory, the search for universal laws — and “fundamental constants” — remains a cornerstone of modern physics.
But in a relational ontology, this idea of universality as sameness across space-time becomes problematic. The world is not composed of self-contained parts governed by eternal rules, but of fields of relation undergoing constrained actualisation. Within this view, universality must be reconceived: not as absolute sameness, but as the transposability of patterned coherence across differentiated systems.
1. The Classical Ideal: Law-Like Sameness
-
Universality has been closely tied to objectivity: if a principle holds everywhere, it must be real,
-
Constants like the speed of light or Planck’s constant are taken as signatures of universal structure,
-
But this assumes a substrate of entity-based identity and observer-independent invariance — assumptions the quantum-relational picture undermines.
2. Relational Regimes: No “Everywhere,” Only Configuration
-
In a relational ontology, there is no absolute “everywhere” — only particular configurations of relation that actualise in coherent ways,
-
“The same law” across different contexts may mean different actualisations of similar relational constraints — not identical behaviours across space-time,
-
What persists is not a universal content, but a transferrable construal — a stable way of coordinating relation under differing pressures.
3. Universality as Transfer of Coherence
-
A relational conception of universality foregrounds the portability of systemic patterns,
-
What makes a principle “universal” is not its abstraction from context, but its recurrent actualisability in multiple relational fields,
-
In this sense, universality becomes relational translatability: the ability of a system to reorganise in ways that preserve patterned coherence under transformation.
4. Constants as Constraints, Not Absolutes
-
So-called “fundamental constants” may reflect fixed points in specific regimes, not ultimate facts about nature,
-
They emerge from the geometry of constraint within a given configuration — and may themselves shift across regimes,
-
Their stability is contingent, not metaphysical — robust under certain conditions, but not guaranteed outside them.
5. The Work of Universality
-
Universality is not something to be assumed, but something to be traced and negotiated,
-
It arises not from removing context, but from discovering how different contexts can be made commensurate — how meaning can move across boundaries of scale, medium, or relation,
-
Physics, then, becomes the craft of relational generalisation — a way of constructing stable resonances across the flux of becoming.
Closing
The search for universality is not the search for eternal truths, but for transferable patterns of coherence. What we call “laws,” “constants,” or “symmetries” may not be absolute features of reality, but relational stabilisations — points where different actualisations resonate in ways that can be coordinated.
In the next post, we will explore how this reconception of universality leads us to rethink the idea of symmetry — not as abstract invariance, but as dynamic balance within a field of tension.
No comments:
Post a Comment