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.
No comments:
Post a Comment