1 Space and Time as Instantiable Relations
In the dominant interpretation of Einstein’s theories of relativity, space and time are usually taken as objective, observer-independent dimensions of a four-dimensional manifold. Events are located in this manifold with fixed coordinates, and physical laws govern how they unfold within it. But this view rests on metaphysical assumptions that are seldom questioned—assumptions that have more to do with inherited philosophical habits than with what relativity itself requires.
In this post, I want to begin rethinking space and time from the ground up—starting not with a background container into which events are placed, but with a semiotic ontology informed by Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). From this perspective, space and time are not pre-given dimensions; they are relations between instances. They are not waiting to be filled by events; they emerge as actualised dimensions of experience through acts of meaning.
Beyond the Manifold: From Background Container to Relational Dimension
Traditional metaphysics treats space and time as absolute or relativised containers—either as fixed frameworks (as in Newtonian physics) or as malleable geometric structures (as in general relativity). But either way, they are assumed to exist independently of the instances they contain.
In contrast, the ontology I’m proposing takes instances as primary. An instance, in this context, is not merely an event or a particle, but a semiotically actualised relation. There is no background framework for space or time that exists apart from these relations. Rather:
Space is the dimension of relations between co-present instances.Time is the dimension of relations between successive instances in a process.
This is a fundamentally different starting point. Rather than positing a container and populating it with instances, we begin with relations of co-presence and succession, and only then derive the semiotic constructs we call “space” and “time.”
Time as the Dimension of Processual Unfolding
This is not metaphor. It is a commitment to a different metaphysical grammar. A process is not something that happens in time; rather, time is the dimension of the unfolding of process. A process instantiates its own temporal order. The flow of time is not something we are in; it is something we enact in the actualisation of experience.
This reconstrual aligns with relativity’s emphasis on the relativity of simultaneity and the interdependence of space and time—but it challenges the idea that these relations must be grounded in an independent four-dimensional continuum. Instead, the relational structure of space and time is grounded in the semiotic processes that actualise them.
Space as Relational Co-Presence
Similarly, space is not a pre-existing set of coordinates. It is the construal of relation between co-actualised instances. When we say that two entities are “in the same place,” we are not describing a location that exists apart from them; we are describing a relation of spatial co-instantiation.
This idea is closer than it might seem to some formulations in relativity—such as the idea that spatial intervals are observer-dependent. But rather than anchoring these variations in geometry, we anchor them in meaning: what counts as “here” and “there” depends on the semiotic structure of the instance, and on its relation to the systems in which it is actualised.
What This Changes
This reconstrual leads us to rethink some of the fundamental premises of relativity, without undermining its mathematical formulation. The equations stay the same—but what they mean shifts dramatically:
Space and time are not dimensions of a background reality; they are instantiable relations between phenomena.
Simultaneity is not an illusion; it is a relation of co-instantiation, meaningful within a given semiotic field.
Temporal succession is not embedded in a fourth dimension; it is enacted in the actualisation of processes.
This metaphysical shift may help resolve some of the conceptual tensions between relativity and quantum mechanics—tensions that are not necessarily problems of physics, but of metaphysics.
In the next post, we will turn to the question of gravity. Can we make sense of gravitational effects—such as time dilation—without appealing to a curved spacetime? What happens if we construe gravity as a function of relational instantiation rather than geometric deformation?
2 Gravity Without Curvature — A Semiotic Reinterpretation
In the previous post, we reframed space and time as relations between instances rather than as fixed, observer-independent dimensions embedded in a four-dimensional manifold. Today, we take the next step: reconsidering gravity itself.
Gravity as a Relation of Relational Instantiation
Einstein’s general relativity revolutionised our understanding of gravity, describing it not as a force but as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass-energy. The famous image of a heavy ball deforming a stretched rubber sheet captures this intuitively.
But this metaphor—and the underlying geometric model—relies on the idea of a background manifold that can be curved. What if we step away from the assumption of a pre-existing geometric space, and instead view gravity through the lens of semiotic instantiation?
From our SFL-informed ontology, gravity is not a geometric deformation of space-time; it is a functional relation of contraction and dilation between instances of potential actualisation.
Time Dilation and Length Contraction as Semiotic Effects
Experiments confirm gravitational time dilation: clocks near a massive object run slower relative to those farther away. Similarly, objects appear contracted in space when moving at relativistic speeds.
In the geometric view, these effects arise from curved spacetime metrics. In the relational instantiation view:
The rate of actualisation of temporal instances (what we call “time”) varies relative to the gravitational field.
The measurements of spatial intervals (what we call “length”) depend on the relational context of co-instantiation.
Put simply, gravitational effects are not caused by geometric warping of a background but are manifestations of how instances actualise their meaning potentials in different gravitational contexts.
The Centre of Mass as a Semiotic Centre
Instead of imagining gravity as the curvature of a manifold centred on mass, consider the centre of mass as the focal point of relational instantiation.
The gravitational field corresponds to a pattern of relational contraction or dilation of the dimensions of actualisation—how space and time are instantiated relative to this centre. This is consistent with relativity’s predictions but reframes them as semiotic relations, not geometric ones.
Implications for Unifying Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
One persistent difficulty in physics is reconciling the smooth geometry of general relativity with the probabilistic and discrete nature of quantum mechanics. Viewing gravity as a semiotic relation of instantiation provides a conceptual bridge:
Quantum mechanics deals with probabilities of potential actualisation—wavefunctions collapse as potential becomes instance.
Gravity can be seen as the modulation of these actualisation processes across relational contexts.
This reframing dissolves the need for a quantum theory of gravity as a new geometric theory. Instead, it invites us to study the semiotic processes underlying the instantiation of space and time themselves, as these vary with relational context.
Next Steps
This post has outlined a new way to think about gravity: not as geometry, but as a semiotic modulation of the instantiation of space and time. In the final post of this series, we will explore how this SFL-informed ontology might illuminate the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, especially the collapse of the wavefunction, superposition, and entanglement.
By integrating these perspectives, we can begin to dissolve the metaphysical conflicts that have long divided physics.
3 Reconciling Relativity and Semiotic Instantiation
In our previous posts, we challenged traditional views of space and time as fixed geometric backgrounds and introduced a Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)-informed ontology, seeing space and time as relations of instantiation—dynamic, semiotic processes that actualise meaning potentials in experience.
Now, we turn explicitly to Einstein’s theories of relativity, aiming to reconcile their groundbreaking insights with this semiotic framework.
Relativity as a Semiotic Phenomenon
General and special relativity revolutionised physics by showing that:
Space and time are not absolute, observer-independent containers but relational and context-dependent.
The measurement of intervals of space and time depends on the observer’s frame of reference.
This aligns closely with the SFL view that:
Space and time are relations between instances, not entities in themselves.
What we measure as “space” and “time” are semiotic constructions, actualised in the interaction between observer and observed.
Gravity as a Relation of Instantiation
Einstein’s insight that gravity is the manifestation of spacetime curvature is profound—but the concept of curvature relies on a geometric model that presupposes a fixed manifold.
Our SFL-informed approach suggests:
Gravity arises from the relation of instances of potential actualised by mass-energy, not from curvature of a pre-existing geometric space.
This means gravity is understood as a semiotic effect of instantiation relations between mass, energy, and their observed spatial-temporal coordinates.
This relational view dissolves paradoxes caused by attributing absolute geometry to spacetime.
Time Dilation and Length Contraction as Semiotic Relations
Phenomena like time dilation and length contraction, famously predicted by relativity, can be understood as:
Variations in the semiotic actualisation of temporal and spatial relations due to differences in gravitational potential or relative velocity.
These are not distortions of an absolute spacetime but shifts in the relational process of instantiation as mediated by mass-energy contexts.
Towards a Unified Semiotic Ontology of Reality
By reinterpreting relativity as a theory about how meaning potentials of space and time are instantiated relationally, we bridge the gap between:
The observer-dependent relativistic measurements, and
The underlying semiotic processes that constitute experience.
This opens paths to unify relativity with quantum phenomena under a shared framework of semiotic actualisation, dissolving metaphysical confusions about “absolute” versus “relative” reality.
Conclusion
Einstein’s relativity and SFL’s semiotic ontology both invite us to see reality not as a fixed stage but as a network of dynamic relations actualising potential meaning into instance.
Reconsidering space, time, and gravity as semiotic processes reshapes our metaphysical assumptions and offers new insights for physics, philosophy, and semiotics alike.
Our journey through the ontology of space and time thus concludes—not with fixed answers but with a richer conceptual toolkit to explore the unfolding fabric of reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment