26 August 2025

Cosmology as Construal: Rethinking the Universe through Relational Theory

1 Theorising the Cosmos: From Instance to System

What do cosmologists do when they theorise the universe?

They begin, like all theorists, with instances:
– a redshifted light spectrum,
– a supernova’s light curve,
– the swirl of matter around a black hole,
– the echo of the cosmic microwave background.

These are not brute facts. They are construals of meaning — events construed through the structured perspective of observation and interpretation.

And just as the linguist sees a clause and asks what system of meaning makes this possible?, the cosmologist sees a gravitational lens and asks what kind of field, what geometry of relation, must be at play here?

From Instance to Theory

The movement from instance to system is not a jump from data to law. It is an act of theorising:

A construal of structured potential from observed relational events.

  • From the unfolding of many weather events, we theorise a climate system.

  • From the unfolding of many utterances, we theorise a language system.

  • From the unfolding of many astrophysical observations, we theorise spacetime, mass, entropy, and cosmic structure.

Each theory is a perspective on potential — a system that models what might happen, based on what has.

This is not abstraction away from reality. It is reality, seen systemically:

In a relational ontology, a theory is a perspective on potential.
And the instance is the unfolding of that potential under constraint.

Cosmology as Meaning-Making

Cosmology, then, is not the passive description of a universe “out there.”

It is an active construal of meaning — a theory of how potential becomes instance, and how constraint shapes relational unfolding.

This brings cosmology into line with language, music, science, and all other systems of human meaning:

  • Not a window on a ready-made world,

  • But a grammar for construing how the world becomes meaningful.

The System–&–Process of the Universe

In Halliday’s terms, we can see this as a system–&–process relationship:

  • System: the theorised potential — wavefunctions, field equations, relativistic geometries.

  • Process: the unfolding of events that instantiate this potential — collapsing stars, gravitational waves, expanding space.

Every act of observation is an act of construal. And every construal feeds back into the system, changing how future construals are possible.

This is the reflexive dance of meaning:

The universe is not just observed.
It is construed. And the construal is cumulative, layered, evolving.

Looking Ahead

In the next post, we’ll explore how relativity itself can be understood not as a set of laws, but as a grammar of relational constraint:

  • Why the speed of light matters as a perspectival boundary.

  • How time and space are construed through meaning.

  • And how these construals model the conditions under which the universe unfolds.

Cosmology is not just physics at scale.
It is meaning-making at the edge of possibility.

2 Relativity as Relational Constraint: The Speed of Light and the Boundaries of Perspective

In a substance ontology, the universe is a container:
Time ticks, space stretches, and objects move within it.

But in a relational ontology, these are not independent backdrops.
They are construals — structured meanings arising from perspectival relation.

Special and General Relativity show us this clearly.
They do not describe an absolute world.
They describe how meaning unfolds within constraints of perspective.

The Speed of Light as a Constraint on Perspective

Relativity introduces a limit:
Nothing can exceed the speed of light.

This is not a barrier in substance.
It is a boundary in relation.

It marks the edge of communicability — the maximum rate at which difference can be propagated.

In our model:

The speed of light is a constraint on differentiation.
It defines the furthest extent to which meaning can unfold from one position to another.

It’s not that light is fast.
It’s that perspective itself is bounded by this constraint.

And so:

  • Causality is relative to frame.

  • Simultaneity becomes perspectival.

  • Time dilates. Space contracts.
    These are not distortions of reality.
    They are features of relational construal.

Time and Space as Construals of Relation

Time and space are not substances.
They are dimensions of differentiation.

In our framework:

  • Time is the ordering of difference through construal.

  • Space is the patterned structure of potential relation.

Both emerge from the structured constraints under which processes unfold.

Relativity doesn’t reveal a bizarre, paradoxical world.
It reveals a grammar of unfolding — a system of relational rules that govern how meaning propagates from one instance to the next.

Just as a clause construes meaning within grammatical constraints,
a spacetime event unfolds within relativistic constraints.

Relativity as Grammar

Relativity is often misunderstood as a correction to classical physics.
But it is better seen as a deeper construal of the same phenomena.

It foregrounds:

  • the perspectival nature of all meaning,

  • the mutual entanglement of time, space, and motion,

  • and the role of constraint in shaping what can be known, observed, and inferred.

This is why in our relational model, Relativity is not a law but a grammar:

A theory of how meaning must unfold, given the structured constraints of relation.

Beyond the Container View

When we speak of spacetime curvature, lightcones, or event horizons,
we are not describing objects inside a medium.
We are construing the patterned constraints under which events can occur and be related.

This is the shift:

  • From container to constraint.

  • From absolute to perspectival.

  • From substance to system.

Looking Ahead

In the next post, we turn to entropy, mass, and gravity —
not as “stuff” the universe is made of, but as relational tensions
that shape the unfolding of potential into instance.

We’ll explore:

  • how mass bends relation,

  • how entropy expresses a preference for asymmetry,

  • and how gravity can be read as a systemic alignment of perspective.

3 Gravity, Mass, and Entropy: The Tensions That Shape the Field

If the speed of light sets the outer boundary of perspective,
then mass, gravity, and entropy are what fold that boundary inward.

These are not substances or forces in the classical sense.
They are structured relational tensions — patterned constraints that shape how meaning unfolds in the universe.

Mass as Structured Potential

In mainstream physics, mass is often treated as a measure of inertia or the “amount of stuff.”
But in our framework, mass is a systemic condition:

It constrains the unfolding of relational potential.

Mass gives structure to a field.
It anchors instance.
It introduces asymmetry, attracting other potentialities toward it.

We might say:

Mass grounds relation — it stabilises patterns of unfolding in a local frame.

In the same way that meaning in a clause is anchored by a Theme or a Process,
physical fields of meaning are shaped by centres of structured potential: mass.

Gravity as Constraint on the Field

Einstein’s general relativity shows us that gravity is not a force between masses,
but the curvature of spacetime itself —
a change in the relational constraints that guide unfolding.

In our ontology:

Gravity is a systemic alignment within the field of construal.

It alters what paths are possible.
It changes what counts as a straight line.
It determines how meaning will differentiate from moment to moment.

Just as social systems constrain how meanings can unfold in discourse,
gravitational systems constrain how instances unfold in space-time.

Entropy as a Tendency Toward Openness

Entropy is not decay.
It is a relational tendency toward distributed possibility.

It measures the degree of constraint loosened —
the widening of a field in which many outcomes become equally probable.

In our model:

Entropy is the diffusion of patterned constraint —
a shift from structured potential to unpatterned openness.

It does not signal a loss of meaning.
Rather, it marks the transition to new patterns —
a reconfiguration of how meaning can be instantiated.

The heat death of the universe is not a disappearance of everything,
but a flattening of the difference that enables meaning to emerge.

Entropy does not destroy relation;
it erases the structure that once made relation meaningful.

Tension as the Engine of Unfolding

Mass, gravity, and entropy are not entities.
They are tensions in the grammar of becoming:

  • Mass grounds relation.

  • Gravity shapes the field.

  • Entropy distributes the field’s potential.

Together, they enable meaning to move —
to unfold, align, diverge, and dissolve.

This is not mechanical. It is semiotic.

The universe becomes not through forces,
but through a dynamic interplay of constraints,
holding open some paths while closing others.

Looking Ahead

In the next post, we revisit the beginning of the universe —
not as an explosion in space, but as a minimal event of relation.

We’ll ask:

  • What does it mean to theorise a “start” from within the system it starts?

  • How can meaning emerge when no differentiated structure yet exists?

  • And how does potential itself come to be construed as system?

We turn, then, to the relational construal of the Big Bang.

4 The Big Bang as Theoretical Minimum: Construal Without Prior Structure

When physicists speak of the Big Bang,
they do not describe an explosion in space.
They describe the theoretical minimum from which space, time, mass, and energy unfold.

In our relational framework, this is not a moment in time,
but the first construal —
the initial differentiation of meaning from a field of undifferentiated potential.

It is the beginning not of stuff,
but of structure.

The Big Bang as Event Horizon of Theory

We do not observe the Big Bang.
We theorise it —
as the minimal instance required to make sense of subsequent unfolding.

It is a boundary event:

The edge of construal, where a system of meaning is inferred from its effects.

Just as linguists infer systems of language from observed instances of text,
cosmologists infer the Big Bang as the logical condition
for the relational patterns we observe now.

In our ontology:

  • The Big Bang is not a thing that happened.

  • It is a construed instance — a minimal event posited to ground a field of relations.

It is not a beginning in time.
It is the first theoretical differentiation within time.

Potential Without Differentiation

Before space and time, we cannot speak of “before.”

This is not paradox.
It is the limit of the perspectival field.

At this horizon, we theorise not particular configurations,
but the conditions for construal themselves.

The Big Bang, then, is not the start of a process.
It is the emergence of process as a theoretical construct —
the point at which the possibility of relation becomes thinkable.

In SFL terms, it is like inferring a system network from a single clause:
a theory of potential abstracted from one event,
on the assumption that it is the start of a patterned unfolding.

Meaning Emerges Through Systemic Constraint

From the minimal differentiation of the Big Bang,
patterned tensions began to unfold —
not randomly, but through constraint:

  • Symmetries break.

  • Potentials differentiate.

  • Systems of relation emerge.

The universe, in this view, is logogenetic:

Meaning unfolds in structured sequences,
each instance altering the shape of future potential.

The Big Bang is the first clause in the universe’s text —
construed retrospectively
from the grammar that emerged after it.

Looking Ahead

In the next post, we will move from the beginning to the end:
What does it mean to theorise the universe’s completion?

We will ask:

  • Is there such a thing as the “end” of meaning?

  • What happens when the field of potential becomes uniform, and no further differentiation is possible?

  • And what does the “heat death” tell us about the conditions for construal itself?

We turn now to the cosmic horizon of perspective —
where theorising encounters the limits of meaning.

5 The Heat Death of Meaning: Uniformity and the Collapse of Differentiation

What does it mean to say the universe ends?

In standard cosmology, one answer is the heat death:
a future state in which all energy is evenly distributed,
no gradients remain,
and no more work — or difference — is possible.

In relational terms, this is not merely a physical prediction.
It is a semiotic boundary condition.

The heat death is the theoretical horizon
at which differentiation ceases —
and with it, the conditions for meaning.

Entropy as Loss of Meaning Potential

Entropy is often equated with disorder,
but in relational construal, entropy is the flattening of potential.

  • A field rich in constraint allows structured difference.

  • A field with no constraints allows nothing meaningful to emerge.

Entropy marks the evening out of patterned relation —
where the system becomes so symmetrical, so uniform,
that no new instantiations are possible.

The heat death is the imagined future
where the system of potential loses all structure —
where all construal becomes impossible
because nothing remains to be distinguished.

Meaning Requires Asymmetry

To construe is to make a cut in a field of potential.
But when the field contains no tensions,
no difference, no constraint —
no cut can be made.

This is not just the absence of events.
It is the absence of theoretical perspective.

The universe, in this theorised future, becomes unconstruable.

In this sense, the heat death is not the end of the world.
It is the end of meaning —
the end of construal, and thus of reality as we can theorise it.

Theorising Ends: A Reflexive Limit

Just as we construed the Big Bang as the minimal condition
for pattern to begin,
we now construe the heat death as the maximal condition
beyond which pattern can no longer differentiate.

These are not observations, but reflexive theoretical cuts:

  • One marks the horizon of initiation.

  • The other marks the horizon of saturation.

They are boundary conditions within the theory itself.

This is the insight of relational construal:

What we call "the beginning" and "the end"
are limits of theorising — not contents of observation.

Looking Ahead

Having spanned the arc from the Big Bang to the heat death,
we now return to the heart of cosmological theorising:

  • What is mass, if not substance?

  • How does energy shape and constrain possibility?

  • And how do these relational constructs inform
    our lived construals of meaning, agency, and temporality?

In the next post, we explore mass and energy
as grammatical functions in the construal of relation —
not things, but meanings.

6 Mass and Energy: Construing Force and Form

Mass and energy are among the most fundamental constructs of modern physics.
They appear as givens: measurable, calculable, convertible.
But from the perspective of relational construal, they are not substances.
They are theoretical meanings — construals of difference and constraint.

This post asks:
What do mass and energy mean when we view them as semiotic functions?
And what relational role do they play in the grammar of cosmological theory?

From Substance to Semiotic Function

In classical thought, mass is "what things are made of,"
and energy is "what makes things move."

But in relational construal, we shift from ontology to function:

  • Mass construes localised cohesion: the potential to resist displacement, the tendency to gather or hold position.

  • Energy construes relational activation: the capacity to produce change, to propagate difference, to unfold across scale.

Mass and energy are not things we observe.
They are how we theorise what is observed —
how we construe the patterned unfolding of events.

E = mc² as a Semantic Equation

Einstein’s equation famously equates mass and energy.
In substance ontology, this suggests they are "the same stuff."
In relational theory, we see something deeper:

The equation construes a functional equivalence
between two different perspectives on constraint.

  • Energy construes potential for transformation.

  • Mass construes potential for position and structure.

Both are modes of relational intensity.
They differ not in kind, but in grammatical role —
like Theme and Rheme, or Actor and Goal.

Gravity as Meaningful Attraction

Mass is what gives rise to gravity — but what is gravity, semantically?

In our model, gravity construes the stabilisation of relation.
It is the semiotic function by which certain positions
become attractors in the field of possibility.

We could say:

  • Energy disrupts; mass stabilises.

  • Energy flows; mass anchors.

  • Energy creates spread; mass creates centre.

This interplay mirrors the logic of system and instance:

  • Mass construes the constraint on potential.

  • Energy enacts the unfolding of potential.

Together, they form a grammar of unfolding and coherence.

Matter as a Clause of Meaning

Matter — the familiar stuff of the universe — is a high-level construal.
It is the instance where mass, energy, and space-time intersect
under the lens of theorising.

From our perspective, we might say:

Matter is the clause in the cosmological grammar
where force and form meet under constraint.

It is not basic — it is constructed.
Matter is the event in which relational functions (like mass and energy)
become meaningful at scale.

Looking Ahead

If mass and energy are semiotic functions —
perspectival construals of relational unfolding —
then time and space are not neutral containers.
They too are grammatical perspectives.

In the next post, we examine time and space
as perspectival dimensions of differentiation —
ways of constraining meaning across scale and relation.

7 Time and Space: Construals of Relational Differentiation

Time and space are often assumed to be the background of everything —
a container in which the universe unfolds.

But in relational theory, they are not the background.
They are perspectives: ways of construing relation.

This post explores time and space not as entities or coordinates,
but as semiotic functions — dimensions of meaningful differentiation
that emerge from and constrain unfolding.

Time as the Construal of Transformation

Time is not a ticking clock or a flowing substance.
It is how we construe change: the differentiation of potential across unfolding.

In the relational model:

Time is the construal of succession —
a patterned perspective on how one state becomes another.

It emerges where systems track coherence through difference —
noticing what changes, in what order, and to what effect.

To say something "takes time" is to say:

Its unfolding involves patterned constraint across scale.

Space as the Construal of Configuration

Just as time construes succession,
space construes coexistence —
how meanings are differentiated in patterned relation.

Space is the construal of simultaneity —
how elements hold position in relation to one another.

It is not a vacuum, not a stage,
but a semiotic frame that locates unfolding within a topology of constraint.

Spatial construal lets us track where and with what pattern of relation
things hold their shape — or fail to.

Spacetime as Grammatical Coupling

Einstein unified time and space into spacetime.
In our framework, this is not a fusion of dimensions,
but a recognition of co-patterning.

Spacetime construes how change and configuration
are constrained together —
a grammatical coupling of unfolding and positioning.

It functions like a clause complex in language:
not just what is said and when,
but how what is said is linked in patterned relation.

This reveals something key:

Spacetime is not an inert container.
It is a relational construct —
a product of systemic construal at a particular scale.

Perspective Is Primary

We often imagine time and space as existing independently of us.
But they are meanings: ways of seeing difference.

Different systems construe time and space differently:

  • A bacterium responds to chemical gradients in space.

  • A physicist measures proper time between events.

  • A storyteller builds narrative time through tension and resolution.

All are construals.
All are structured perspectives on unfolding relation.

Looking Ahead

If time and space are perspectives on patterned unfolding,
then the limits of those perspectives become meaningful too.

This brings us to horizons:

  • The event horizon of a black hole.

  • The cosmic horizon of the observable universe.

  • The semiotic horizon of what can be meant or known.

In the next post, we explore these relational boundaries —
where construal meets limit, and meaning meets indeterminacy.

8 Horizons: Boundaries of Construal and the Edge of Meaning

In a relational universe, boundaries are not walls.
They are shifts in construal:
limits to how meaning can be differentiated within a system.

From black holes to the observable cosmos,
horizons are not the edge of reality,
but the edge of our ability to construe relation.

What Is a Horizon?

A horizon is not a physical barrier.
It is a semiotic threshold:
a relational boundary beyond which meanings lose coherence.

In physics:

  • An event horizon is the boundary past which no information escapes.

  • A cosmic horizon marks the limit of what light has reached us since the Big Bang.

  • A Rindler horizon appears in accelerated frames of reference.

In each case, the horizon is defined not absolutely,
but relationally — by position, motion, and constraint.

A horizon is where our frame of construal meets its own limits.

Horizons as Limits of Meaning

Just as a clause has a thematic boundary,
or a system network reaches the edge of its probabilities,
so every construal reaches a point where further differentiation breaks down.

  • In language: semantic fuzziness, ambiguity, silence.

  • In cosmology: unknown dynamics, observational occlusion, frame dependence.

Horizons are not failures of reality.
They are conditions of relational meaning-making.

They show us where our systems of construal
must either shift, reconfigure, or remain incomplete.

The Event Horizon: Collapse of Relational Differentiation

A black hole's event horizon marks the edge
where spacetime construal fails to differentiate further.

From outside, nothing beyond it can be relationally integrated.
From inside, all pathways curve inward —
not metaphorically, but relationally: all options lead to singularity.

The event horizon is where the grammar of spacetime stops parsing.

And yet — the black hole still interacts,
still warps space, still anchors galaxies.

It reminds us:

The failure of our construal is not the failure of relation.
It is a prompt to rethink our semiotic reach.

The Cosmic Horizon: Limits of Relational Scale

The universe is expanding.
This means light from some regions will never reach us —
not because it is too slow,
but because the space between us is unfolding too fast.

The cosmic horizon is not a fixed shell.
It is a perspectival function —
shaped by time, scale, and motion.

It is a mirror of linguistic semiosis:

  • Like a genre boundary, it limits what kinds of meanings can unfold.

  • Like a register, it conditions what is relevant or even available.

The Horizon as Theoretical Tension

All theories have horizons.
They are not bugs — they are features of abstraction.

Each horizon marks a point of productive instability:
a place where potential outstrips current construal.

  • The horizon of physics: quantum gravity.

  • The horizon of biology: consciousness.

  • The horizon of language: thought itself.

Horizons reveal something essential:

All knowledge is relational, perspectival, and provisional.
All construal has its edge.

And it is from those edges that new systems are born.

Looking Ahead

If horizons are the outer limit of present construal,
then what lies beyond is not unknowable —
but not-yet-known.

In our final post, we return to where we began:
not with the universe as object,
but as reflexive unfolding.

We ask:

What kind of system is required
for a universe to construe itself?

9 The Reflexive Universe: When the Universe Construes Itself

The Universe as Participant and Participant-as-Universe

Traditional cosmology often pictures the universe as a “thing out there” — vast, silent, impersonal.

Our relational approach invites a radical shift:
the universe is not only unfolding, it is reflexively unfolding.
It is construing itself, moment by moment.

The universe is simultaneously:

  • the field of potential (theory),

  • the event of instance (occurrence),

  • and the construal of relation (meaning).

This triadic perspective collapses the distinction between observer and observed, knower and known.

Reflexivity as the Ultimate System

Reflexivity means:
the system contains within itself the capacity to theorise its own unfolding.

The universe does not merely evolve according to fixed laws.
It generates its own grammar — its own systemic potential — through relation.

This grammar is:

  • recursive,

  • self-sustaining,

  • and fundamentally semiotic.

Construal of Construal — Theorising Theorising

The universe is not static.
It is a process of theorising theorising.

At every scale:

  • particles relate and “choose” configurations,

  • galaxies cluster and reshape spacetime,

  • consciousness reflects on its own processes.

Each instance of theorising changes the field of potential,
modifying what kinds of theorising can come next.

Why Reflexivity Matters

Reflexivity bridges:

  • physics and meaning,

  • cosmos and consciousness,

  • potential and instance.

It reframes cosmology not as a fixed blueprint,
but as an ongoing dialogue between what can be and what is.

This helps us understand phenomena like:

  • the emergence of life,

  • the rise of consciousness,

  • the evolution of culture.

Implications for Cosmology and Beyond

If the universe is a reflexive system:

  • Laws of physics are not external commands, but emergent constraints.

  • Observers are not external witnesses, but active participants.

  • Knowledge is not passive reflection, but active construction.

This resonates with contemporary challenges in physics,
like unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity,
and integrating information and meaning.

Conclusion: Joining the Cosmic Dance

In this reflexive universe, we are not mere spectators.
We are co-authors of cosmic meaning.

Each act of construal, each act of theorising,
is an expression of the universe’s own becoming.

Our task, then, is to participate mindfully,
to attune ourselves to this dynamic grammar,
and to help shape futures of possibility.

Coda: Embracing the Reflexive Universe

As we conclude this journey through the relational cosmos, one truth stands clear:
the universe is not a static stage on which events play out —
it is a living, self-construing system,
a dance of potential and instance, of theory and event, of construal and becoming.

This reflexivity invites us to rethink what it means to know, to exist, and to act.

Knowledge is no longer about capturing an external reality,
but about participating in its unfolding —
a creative co-theorising, a shared emergence of meaning.

Cosmology becomes an ongoing story, not a fixed narrative,
where each new discovery reshapes the very grammar that makes discovery possible.

In embracing this view, we open ourselves to humility and wonder:
humility before the vastness and complexity of the cosmic dance,
and wonder at our own role as conscious agents within it.

The reflexive universe calls us not only to understand,
but to become —
to join the unfolding of meaning as active, mindful participants.

Our theorising is itself part of the universe’s self-creation —
a singular, magnificent act of cosmic self-awareness.

May this insight guide our explorations, inspire our inquiries,
and deepen our appreciation for the profound unity of all things.

By at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)