“Between any two things lies not a void, but relation.”
We often speak of space as if it were a kind of nothingness. “Empty space,” “outer space,” “a vacuum” — the metaphors persist, even in physics. These expressions carry the intuition that space is an invisible, all-encompassing medium, separating the objects we care about. A planet sits in space. A molecule is surrounded by space. Space, in this view, is like a transparent container: it holds things, surrounds them, and exists apart from them.
But this view is not only metaphoric — it’s metaphysical. It assumes space exists in itself, independent of the things and processes it contains. In classical physics, this container model was formalised in Newton's idea of absolute space: a fixed, universal framework in which events occur. Even in much of contemporary language, we retain a ghost of this idea: space as the gap between solid objects, the thing left over when there is “nothing there.”
The relational ontology offers a radically different view.
Space is Not a Medium, but a Relation
In a relational ontology, space does not exist in absence of relation. It is not a void that lies between things, but a pattern of co-instantiating processes. If nothing is unfolding, there is no space. If two processes are unfolding in relation to one another — whether gravitationally, energetically, semiotically — then there is space-as-relation.
This means we must distinguish two fundamentally different construals:
| Construal | Everyday View | Relational Ontology |
|---|---|---|
| Space as Medium | A background expanse between objects, capable of existing without anything in it. | A misconstrual that reifies the relational field into a substance-like thing. |
| Space as Relation | Not a thing between objects, but the structure of their co-unfolding — a topology shaped by interaction. | The only space that exists is the relation between processes, unfolding in time. |
Why ‘Empty Space’ is a Misconstrual
To say that space is empty is to presume that space is a thing — a substance that can be full or empty. But in a relational ontology, space is not a thing at all. It’s not an entity, not a container, not a field in which events happen. Rather, it is a structural consequence of co-instantiation.
This has significant implications:
-
A vacuum is not a place without things — it’s a configuration of uninstantiated potential, constrained by nearby fields and processes.
-
Distance is not a measurement of empty space — it is a degree of separation in a relational topology.
-
No relation, no space. A single isolated process has no spatial extension; only in relation to others can a topology be construed.
Gravitational Fields as Spatial Topologies
When a body enters a gravitational field, it doesn’t move “through” a medium. Rather, it becomes relationally oriented within a topology of constraint. What we perceive as “curved space” is not the bending of a background, but a change in the relational unfolding of processes. The space is not bent — the relations are differently structured.
This applies not just to gravity but to all forms of process interaction. In the relational ontology, space is the unfolding pattern of how systems co-instantiate constraint.
What About the Vacuum of Space?
Isn’t outer space still mostly empty?
Only if we mistake absence of mass for absence of relation.
Even so-called “vacuum” regions are embedded within gravitational fields, electromagnetic potentials, and quantum fluctuations — all of which are processes. These define a relational topology, not a literal emptiness. What is “there” is the structured absence of instantiated matter, shaped by nearby relational potentials. It is not nothing; it is a potential-relational field.
Language, Grammar, and the Reification of Space
In everyday grammar, space often plays the role of an indirect participant — we say that things exist in space, or move through it. This linguistic pattern reinforces the idea of space as a container or background.
But what if we restructured our grammar to reflect relation, rather than substance? Instead of:
-
“The satellite orbits in space,”we might say:“The satellite co-instantiates orbital relation with the Earth.”
Such a shift might sound strange, but it would be ontologically accurate. It would help us resist reifying what is, in fact, just a projection of relation.
Conclusion: No Gaps, Only Relations
There is no such thing as empty space in the relational ontology. What we call “space” is always a configuration of unfolding relation. Where there are no unfolding processes, there is no relation — and therefore no space. Where processes co-unfold, space arises as a topology of constraint, not a container of contents.
This reconstrual does not negate the mathematical tools of physics, but rather, it refuses to ontologise their scaffolding. It invites us to move beyond the void — and into relation.
No comments:
Post a Comment