Dualities as Ontological Equivalence: Mirror Worlds as Metaphor

String theory dualities assert that two seemingly distinct formulations of a system — different geometries, dimensions, or field descriptions — are mathematically equivalent. Popular accounts often suggest this is like having two universes mirroring each other, or that reality is secretly duplicated.

Effect: This metaphor tempts readers to think that dualities reveal hidden “mirror worlds” or ontologically distinct realities. It anthropomorphises mathematics and confuses symbolic equivalence with physical duplication.

Relational Reframe: Dualities are tools for translating between symbolic architectures. They reveal that different descriptive frameworks instantiate the same relational potential. No hidden universe exists; the equivalence is about perspectival representation, not physical replication.

Takeaway: Dualities illuminate the structure of theory, not the structure of reality. The mirror is epistemic, not ontological.

---

String theory is riddled with dualities — mathematical correspondences showing that seemingly different theories or setups yield identical predictions. Popular expositions often suggest that dualities reveal hidden “equivalences” in reality, implying that two very different physical pictures are somehow the same thing at a fundamental level.

Effect: This metaphor encourages the reader to conflate formal symmetry with ontological identity. It presents dual theories as two faces of the same underlying entity, subtly installing the idea of a single, pre-existing reality behind the mathematics.

Relational Reframe: From a relational perspective, dualities are tools for constraining and translating relational potentials. They expose correspondences between symbolic architectures, not between “things” in the world. A duality does not say, “the two pictures are literally identical,” but rather, “these two sets of relations produce equivalent patterns within their respective formalisms.”

Consequence: Taking dualities as literal equivalences invites metaphysical speculation — entire universes “mirrored” or “mapped” onto each other — when the work of the duality is purely formal. What is real is the consistency of relational structure, not a hidden identity of objects or spaces.

Punchline: Dualities are mirrors of the formalism, not of reality itself; they illuminate patterns in our construals, not the pre-existing fabric of the cosmos.