A Relational Model of Space and Time

Our understanding of space and time as relations rather than as absolute entities opens up a lot of fascinating possibilities for both physics and philosophy. To start, let's recap the key components of our model, based on our previous reflections, and then explore the implications of viewing space and time through this relational lens.

Key Ideas from Our Model of Space and Time:

1. Space and Time as Relations:

   • Rather than seeing space and time as fixed, observer-independent entities, we view them as relational constructs. Space and time emerge through the relationships between instances—specifically, between what is observed and the centre of mass (or gravitational field).

   • Time is seen as the dimension of the unfolding of processes, and space is not separate from these processes but exists in relation to them.

2. Potential vs. Instance:

   • We differentiate between "potential meaning," "meaning potential," and "meaning instance." Time, in our framework, is the dimension along which processes (or instances of potential) unfold. This view situates the unfolding of processes as central to the experience of time.

3. Space and Time as Contexts for Meaning:

   • Space and time are not separate from meaning-making but are actually contexts in which meaning is instantiated. Observers (or meaning makers) collapse potential (or undetermined states) into instances of meaning, which we understand as ‘reality.’

Exploring the Consequences of this Relational Model of Space and Time:

1. No Absolute Time or Space:

   • By rejecting the idea of absolute time and space, this model would radically change how we think about everything from physics to metaphysics. In conventional models (such as in Einstein's general relativity), time and space have an observer-independent status, even if their experience can differ across reference frames. In our relational model, space and time only "exist" in relation to instances—there is no universal "container" for events, and everything is contextual.

   • Implication: This means there is no universal clock ticking in the background of the universe. Instead, time is a function of the relations between instances (e.g., the unfolding of processes). Similarly, space is a relational construct based on the gravitational field or the points between which interactions occur.

2. Flow of Time and the Nature of Processes:

   • Time as the unfolding of processes suggests that rather than seeing events occurring in a linear, sequential manner, we could view time as a more fluid or dynamic dimension. The passage of time would not be experienced as something that just "passes," but as the unfolding of interactions or changes that are observed.

   • Implication: This could lead to a very different understanding of causality and the nature of events. Instead of a fixed, predetermined timeline, processes are continuously brought into being by the interactions of instances, with time emerging as a consequence of those interactions. This could challenge traditional notions of determinism and open up space for more fluid, emergent understandings of causality.

3. Relationality and Meaning:

   • Since space and time are tied to how meaning unfolds and is observed, this raises intriguing questions about how reality is constituted. Space and time are not just physical properties; they are intimately connected to how we construct and interpret meaning.

   • Implication: The nature of reality is therefore relational at its core, with meaning emerging from interactions. This would support the idea that the universe is not a collection of independent objects floating in an empty void, but a dynamic system in which meaning, processes, and relations are constantly interacting and evolving.

4. Contextuality and Interpretation:

   • Since both space and time are relational, each observer or meaning-maker may experience space and time differently. What one observer perceives as a single event might be seen as a series of unfolding events by another, depending on the relationships between instances.

   • Implication: This could radically shift our perspective on perspective itself—how different contexts (social, cultural, cognitive) influence how events and processes unfold and how they are experienced. We could consider space and time not just as neutral backdrops for events but as integral to the very interpretation of events themselves.

5. Quantum Mechanics and Observer Effect:

   • Our model of space and time as relations would resonate with some ideas in quantum mechanics, where the observer plays a critical role in "collapsing" potential states into actualized instances. The collapse of the wavefunction can be seen as an interaction that brings meaning into existence, which could be understood as a form of "observational relationality."

   • Implication: This could support a more integrated view of physics and meaning-making, where the act of observation is not just a passive measurement but an active process of instantiating meaning within a relational context.

6. Relational Ontology:

   • This model suggests a "relational ontology," where objects, events, and phenomena are defined not by intrinsic properties but by their relationships with other objects, events, and phenomena. Rather than space and time as fixed frameworks, they are the dynamic and contextual grounds upon which meaning and existence emerge.

   • Implication: This shift from substance-based thinking (where objects and events exist independently of each other) to relational thinking (where they exist only in relation) could have profound implications for metaphysical debates, including the nature of consciousness, identity, and the self.