But what does this image amount to when reframed through a relational ontology of construal?
Space as construed relation, not container
The textbook explanation assumes that space is a container, warped by gravity, within which objects stretch. From a relational perspective, however, space is not an external stage but a mode of construal: a way of ordering relations of separation and proximity.
Radial and tangential changes, then, are not objective distortions of a grid. They are perspectival construals of how separation potentials unfold differently along different axes:
-
Radial axis (head ↔ feet, toward the singularity): the relation elongates. Head and feet diverge in their separation potential, producing the familiar “spaghettified” elongation along the fall direction.
-
Tangential axes (side ↔ side, perpendicular to the fall): relations contract. The width of the body narrows as separation potential across these axes diminishes.
Thus, spaghettification is not the stretching of a “thing” in absolute space; it is the reconfiguration of relational separations, precisely along radial and tangential axes, as predicted by general relativity.
Time dilation as divergence of unfolding
The claim that time “slows down” toward the horizon is often misunderstood as a literal effect on clocks or processes. In relational ontology, time is a construal of unfolding: how events are ordered relative to one another.
For an outside observer, the falling body’s processes — heartbeat, motion, thought — appear progressively dilated: each event stretches across more of the observer’s own unfolding. For the falling body itself, processes continue seamlessly, with no perception of slowing.
Time dilation, then, is not a retardation of time itself but the divergence of event coordination across perspectives. As the fall progresses, the unfolding of processes remains coherent internally but diverges relationally from external observation.
The fall and the horizon of construal
From the outside, the fall seems asymptotically slow, never completing at the horizon. From within, the fall continues normally — heartbeat, breath, and motion unfolding without perceptible change.
What this illustrates is the limit of joint construal: phenomena across the horizon cannot be co-articulated in a single perspective. Theorisation (second-order construal) attempts to articulate this divergence — “the body stretches infinitely thin,” “the fall slows asymptotically,” “processes freeze” — but these are metaphenomena, reflections of the misalignment of perspectives.
Threads of construal
Spaghettification, then, is less a physical distortion than the disarticulation of construal across axes of potential and across perspectives. Radial relations elongate, tangential relations contract, and inside vs. outside perspectives diverge in their alignment.
Inside the horizon, construal continues. Outside, only the limit is visible. The falling body becomes not a thread of matter but a thread of construal itself — a vivid illustration of what happens when the relations that define phenomena are pulled toward the edge of their own possibility.
Epilogue: Continuity, Enclosure, and the Limits of Alignment
This relational reading ties back to our earlier exploration of event horizons. Horizons do not destroy phenomena; they enclose them, partitioning the reach of construal. Spaghettification shows how relational structure is drawn along axes of potential that diverge across perspectives.
Inside the horizon, phenomena — the body, space, and time — remain fully actualised. Outside, only limits are visible. The fall becomes an illustration of the asymmetry of construal, the divergence of phenomena across perspectives, and the boundary where shared alignment breaks down.
In short, spaghettification is not just a physical curiosity; it is a lens on how meaning, space, time, and relation unfold and fracture at the edge of what can be actualised, offering a concrete example of the horizon as a semiotic and relational partition.
No comments:
Post a Comment