3 The Landscape as Cosmos

One of the most seductive images in string theory is the “landscape” — a vast terrain of possible universes, each with different physical constants, as though creation were a valley-ridden countryside through which reality could have chosen any path.

But this “landscape” is not a cosmos. It is a symbolic construct: the mathematical space of possible solutions to string theory’s equations. Treating it as an actual geography of universes instals a powerful ontological misstep — it reifies potential into actuality.

The metaphor conceals two slippages. First, it treats every consistent solution as if it were a world, already instantiated and waiting somewhere “out there.” Second, it suggests that our universe is one valley among many, as if we could climb the ridge and see others spread before us. This substitutes visual imagination for ontological clarity.

Relationally, the landscape is not a terrain but a spectrum of construals. Each point corresponds to a possible symbolic alignment, not to a hidden universe. The “multiverse” language that often follows is thus doubly misleading: it instals mathematical possibility as cosmological reality, and it suggests that the space of construals is itself a pre-existing super-cosmos.

The appeal is obvious. The landscape metaphor offers a way to domesticate contingency: if our universe seems finely tuned, perhaps it is simply one valley among many. But this is comfort purchased at the cost of ontological confusion. It mistakes a structure of symbolic potential for a catalogue of worlds.

A relational reading reframes the so-called landscape: it is an architecture of possible symbolic cuts, not a map of alternate realities. The cosmos is not a landscape of universes; it is the ongoing alignment of meaning, event, and construal.