Force has long been the emblem of causality in physics — the mechanism by which one object influences another, causing acceleration, deformation, or deflection. In Newtonian mechanics, force is what acts on a body to change its motion. In field theories, force is what arises from interactions between particles via mediating fields.
But all these views presuppose a world made of objects that can be acted upon — a world in which effects follow from applied causes, and in which force is the bridge between them.
A relational ontology does not deny the regularities we associate with force, but it interprets them very differently. Rather than seeing force as a thing that does something to another thing, a relational account understands force as a symptom of tension within a system of constraints — not a causal agent, but a structural tendency.
1. Force as a Legacy of Object-Based Thinking
-
In Newtonian physics, force is an external cause acting upon a passive object,
-
But this presumes discrete, independently existing entities that can influence each other across space,
-
From a relational view, this ontology is already mistaken: there are no isolated things, only configurations of relation within a dynamic field.
2. Acceleration as Systemic Transformation
-
What we observe as acceleration — a change in velocity — is not the result of a force acting on an object,
-
It is the emergence of a new configuration within the constraint field: a transition from one state to another, shaped by the topology of affordances,
-
“Force” is our name for the tendency of constrained potential to resolve along a particular gradient.
3. Field Theories and Constraint Topologies
-
In modern physics, forces are redefined as field interactions: electromagnetic, gravitational, nuclear, etc.,
-
But even here, the ontology remains causal and quasi-substantial: fields “exert” influence, particles “exchange” mediators,
-
A relational reframe would treat fields themselves as expressions of structured possibility — and force as the local manifestation of field tension.
4. No Push, No Pull — Just Differential Coherence
-
There is no need to imagine things being pushed or pulled across a background,
-
What appears as “force” is the imbalance of coherence across a relational structure — the tendency for certain configurations to give way in patterned ways under constraint,
-
The more constrained the potential, the greater the tension — and the more pronounced the transformation. This is experienced as force.
5. Replacing Force with Field Dynamics
-
The relational alternative is not a new kind of interaction, but a new kind of description:
-
Not "A acts on B,"
-
But "the system transitions through a reconfiguration shaped by these gradients of constraint,"
-
-
Force becomes a derived metaphor — a shorthand for relational dynamics unfolding over structured possibility.
Closing
The classical concept of force tries to account for change by imagining a cause outside the system. A relational ontology dissolves this need: there is no external, only the internal restructuring of a field as its constraints shift. What we called “force” is just a symptom of the field resolving itself — tension actualising along a gradient.
In the next post, we will turn to the notion of energy — not as a quantity in transit, but as an index of relational readiness: how systems strain toward reconfiguration under constraint.
No comments:
Post a Comment