Against Gravitational Curvature as a Bend in a Grid

General relativity is often illustrated as a stretched fabric with objects “bending” it. This is visually effective but ontologically misleading. Space is not a material sheet, and gravity is not a force pushing objects along slopes. Curvature is a description of relational constraints between events, not a physical deformation. To think of it as a bend reinforces Newtonian intuition and obscures the subtle relational geometry that defines the movement of matter and light.

Against the Speed-of-Light Barrier as a Wall

It is common to speak of the speed of light as a barrier, a wall that nothing can cross. While correct operationally, this metaphor is misleading ontologically. The speed of light is a constraint on the actualisation of relational potential across events, not a physical wall blocking entities. Framing it as a wall implies substance-like resistance, encouraging mechanistic intuitions. Reality does not “bounce” off the speed limit; it organises itself relationally within constraints, and the light-speed “limit” is a property of these relational structures.

Against Spacetime as a Container

Spacetime is frequently imagined as a four-dimensional container in which events are placed. This metaphor subtly imposes a Newtonian frame on relativistic phenomena. In relational terms, spacetime is not a container but a network of relations among events. Points in spacetime do not exist independently; distances, intervals, and curvature are measures of relational actualisation, not coordinates in a pre-existing stage. Thinking of spacetime as a container encourages reification of abstract structures, hiding the dynamic, relational nature of the universe itself.

Against Quantum Randomness as Chaos

Quantum mechanics is often described as “inherently random,” implying a universe governed by chaos at its core. This is misleading. Relationally, what appears as randomness is the actualisation of potential constrained by relational systems. Probabilities do not reflect disorder; they encode structured potentialities, patterns awaiting instantiation. Calling this randomness invites a mechanistic or mystical misreading: either pure unpredictability or unknowable chaos. In reality, quantum events are coherent relational outcomes, not dice tossed by an indifferent cosmos.

Against the Particle-Wave Duality as a Literal Duality

Textbooks often describe quantum entities as “sometimes particles, sometimes waves,” suggesting a literal duality in nature. But this framing misleads. Electrons, photons, and other quanta are not dual objects; they are instantiations of relational potential whose behaviour depends on context and measurement. The apparent wave or particle properties are patterns in the actualisation of possibilities, not two separate substances switching identities. Treating duality as literal obscures the continuity between potential and actualisation and encourages a category mistake: assuming quantum behaviour must fit pre-existing classical metaphors.