Having rethought the notion of particles as localised events rather than objects, we now turn to the concept that is said to give rise to them: the field.
In contemporary physics, especially quantum field theory (QFT), fields are often described as the fundamental substrate of reality — continuous, fluctuating entities spread out in space and time, from which particles arise as excitations.
But even this elegant picture carries traces of substance metaphysics: the field as a medium in which things happen.
The relational view begins elsewhere.
1. The Field as a Residue of Substance Thinking
Despite its modern appearance, the concept of a field in physics retains two classical assumptions:
-
That there is a continuous substance spread through space (albeit more abstract than particles),
-
That the field is ontologically prior to its manifestations (e.g. particles are “ripples” in the field).
This still treats reality as composed of things — it merely shifts the scale from discrete to continuous.
From a relational standpoint, this is not an advance — it’s a translation of object metaphysics into new language.
2. Field as a Configuration of Potential
In relational ontology, there is no underlying substance. A field is not “what exists” — it is a configuration of constraint and potential.
A field is not a thing, but a topology of relational possibility.
It expresses:
-
How potential actualisations are distributed across a structured space,
-
What kinds of transitions are afforded (or resisted) at each location,
-
How coherence can arise and propagate within a system.
This means we can speak of fields not as entities, but as maps of how relation is structured across a given domain.
3. No Background, No Container
Classical and quantum field theories both treat fields as embedded in spacetime — as if space is the neutral container and the field a content.
But from a relational standpoint:
-
There is no container. Space itself is a pattern of relational affordance,
-
A field does not sit in space; it constitutes spatiality through patterns of actualisation.
This reframing dissolves the Cartesian backdrop. There is no stage on which things play out. What we call the “field” is the topology of potential that is the system.
4. No Universal Field: Only Systemic Configuration
Another legacy of metaphysical thinking is the idea of a universal field — a total substrate from which all particles and interactions derive.
But in relational terms:
-
There is no single, all-encompassing field,
-
Each system construes its own space of potential based on its own constraints and perspective.
Fields are not universal realities. They are structurally specific possibilities — always relative to a system’s mode of coordination.
The “electromagnetic field,” for example, is not a thing “out there” — it is a consistent pattern of affordance under certain conditions of interaction.
5. From Field to Fielding
The relational shift is from field-as-substance to fielding-as-activity.
This shift parallels the earlier move from particle-as-thing to event-as-actualisation.
There is no field to be found behind phenomena.There is only the ongoing coordination of potential —a dynamic, evolving fielding of relation.
This move also aligns with quantum insights: interference, entanglement, and coherence are not properties of stuff, but modalities of constraint.
The world is not made of fields. The world is relational structure — fielding itself.
Closing
To ask “What is a field?” is to ask how possibility is structured in a system. Not “what lies behind the phenomena,” but “what constrains and enables what can happen, and how?”
In relational terms, a field is not what exists beneath experience.It is the very shape of experience as patterned potential.
In the next post, we’ll consider how measurement fits into this picture — and explore why observation doesn’t reveal pre-existing reality, but constitutes it through a perspectival cut.