1 The Assumption of “Force”

Physics treats force as the engine of reality: an agent embedded in matter, compelling motion, shaping events, and linking cause to effect. Forces are measured, quantified, and described as if they are ontological primitives — invisible levers acting upon the universe.

Yet force is not observed in itself. It is a relational construct, a shorthand for the patterns of interaction between entities as construed within a given frame. When we speak of gravitational, electromagnetic, or nuclear forces, we are describing tendencies and regularities, stabilised by mathematical formalism and experimental setup. Force is a measure of potentiality enacted in context, not a metaphysical agent pushing objects along.

By naturalising force as a thing that acts, physics repeats a familiar misstep: it projects modulation — compulsion, absolute influence — onto what is properly modal, a degree of relational potential actualised under specific conditions. The world does not exert “force” in the way physics imagines; rather, our models organise interactions, creating a vocabulary for patterns that recur across frames.

Recognising force as relational preserves explanatory power while correcting ontology. Motion is not compelled by hidden agents; interactions are interpreted and stabilised through construal. To see the frame is to see that what we call force is a tool for making sense of relational patterns, not a decree imposed on reality itself.