Physics as Myth-Making: Construal, Not Cosmos

In popular and academic accounts alike, physics is often narrated as if it were uncovering the truths of the universe—eternal, external, and waiting to be discovered. We speak of “fundamental forces,” “the building blocks of reality,” and “the code of the cosmos” with a kind of reverential inevitability. Yet, from a relational perspective, these are not unmediated revelations of a pre-existing world. They are symbolic architectures, frameworks we construct to organise, predict, and communicate potential phenomena.

The allure of myth in physics is understandable. Human cognition gravitates toward stories that explain why the universe behaves as it does. A particle is “weird” not merely because it defies classical expectations, but because our symbolic scaffolding—our construal of possibility and instantiation—cannot be directly translated into ordinary language. To describe quantum mechanics, relativity, or string theory in anthropomorphic or mechanistic terms is to smooth over the discontinuities between theory, measurement, and observation. It is, in effect, myth-making: a narrative device that makes the abstract concrete and the potential seem actual.

The danger arises when these narratives are taken literally. Mechanistic metaphors, cosmic codes, or statements about the universe “observing itself” can seduce physicists and readers alike into ontological commitments they have not actually justified. When a quantum field is described as a “sea of fluctuations” or the cosmos as a “cosmic symphony,” the prose evokes substance and agency where only relational potential exists. The risk is twofold: it erases the perspectival nature of the construal, and it projects our symbolic choices onto the universe as if they were independent realities.

Relational ontology offers a corrective. The phenomena physics describes are not objects with inherent properties but events actualised through symbolic cuts—instances in which theory, observation, and social agreement converge. The “laws” of physics are not prescriptions written into matter; they are the stable alignments that emerge when repeated construals cohere. Myth, in this light, is not falsehood—it is a heuristic. But it must be recognised as such, lest heuristic metaphor harden into metaphysical assertion.

By viewing physics as a process of myth-making—of constructive construal rather than passive discovery—we open space for a more reflexive science. One that acknowledges the role of instruments, concepts, and human interpretation in shaping what counts as “real.” One that sees the cosmos not as a pre-assembled machine or a code to decode, but as a field of potential relations whose structures we map and stabilise.

In short, physics does not reveal the universe as it “is.” It reveals the universe as we can coherently construe it, moment by moment, through the meticulous alignment of symbolic and experimental acts. Understanding this does not diminish physics; it illuminates its creative and provisional power, reminding us that even our most precise theories are stories of possibility, not tablets of finality.

Physics as Symbolic Architecture

Physics has long narrated itself as the discipline that reveals reality’s inner workings. Its metaphors are of unveiling, discovery, penetration into the hidden core of the cosmos. The physicist is cast as a kind of explorer, prying open nature’s secrets and recording what is found inside. From Newton’s divine mechanic, to Einstein’s geometric poet, to the string theorist’s virtuoso of hidden dimensions, the image repeats: physics mirrors the real.

This narrative is powerful, but it rests on an ontological mistake. It treats symbolic architecture as ontological furniture. That is, it confuses our ways of construing possibility with the structures of being itself. Equations are taken not as symbolic cuts through potential, but as inscriptions of the world’s literal blueprint.

Relational ontology allows us to reframe this. A system is not a hidden entity waiting to be unveiled; it is a theory of possible instances, a structured potential. When physicists produce models and equations, they are not deciphering reality’s code but staging possible construals of alignment between meaning and event. A theory is a scaffolding for symbolic coordination, not a mirror of nature.

If we look at the history of physics through this lens, its “progress” appears in a new light.

• Classical mechanics construed reality as a deterministic apparatus. Motion was coordinated through force, time, and mass, aligning the symbolic cut of cause-and-effect with the experience of regularity.

• Relativity rebuilt the scaffolding in geometric terms. Events were aligned with curvature, simultaneity was cut perspectivally, and the architecture shifted from force to spacetime.

• Quantum theory staged yet another cut: potential itself construed as probabilistic, systemic possibilities actualised in perspectival events.

In each case, what is at stake is not unveiling but reorganising symbolic possibility. Physics invents new architectures that allow us to construe, coordinate, and extend our horizons of potential.

This does not make physics less powerful — quite the opposite. Its achievements are real not because they mirror nature, but because they reorganise how meaning and matter can align. A successful theory is one that scaffolds new forms of construal: new instruments, new practices, new collective myths of matter. Newton’s cosmos of clockwork gears, Einstein’s fabric of spacetime, Feynman’s sum-over-histories — each of these is less a description than a symbolic cosmos in its own right.

What of physics today? String theory is often dismissed as untestable speculation. But perhaps the deeper issue is not empirical but ontological. Its talk of hidden strings, higher dimensions, and cosmic landscapes is not the unearthing of an ultimate reality, but the proposal of a new symbolic scaffolding. The relevant question is not whether strings “exist,” but what possibilities of construal they make possible — what new alignments of event and meaning they afford.

This shift in stance carries consequences. It denies physics the lure of absolutisation: the fantasy of a final theory, a theory of everything. No symbolic architecture can close the gap between system and instance, potential and event, meaning and matter. Theories can only ever construe; they cannot transcribe.

But this is not a weakness — it is the very strength of physics. Its vitality lies in its creativity, in the invention of new architectures of construal. To demand that physics mirror reality is to impoverish it, reducing its craft to stenography. To recognise it as symbolic architecture is to restore its dignity as a generative art of possibility.

Physics, then, is not the discovery of what is, but the invention of how we may construe what can be. Its theories are less mirrors than bridges, less secrets uncovered than architectures built. To take physics seriously is not to mistake scaffolding for reality, but to inhabit its architectures reflexively — to see them as cuts in potential, ways of aligning with the world, and symbolic horizons of the real.

4 String Theory and the Seduction of Metaphor: A Trilogy of Misconstruals

String theory is often celebrated as a pinnacle of theoretical physics: a framework capable of unifying all fundamental forces, revealing the music of the cosmos, and promising a final, complete account of reality. Yet beneath these promises lie persistent metaphors and ontological assumptions that risk misleading both physicists and the broader public. In this post, we step back to examine the trio of conceptual pitfalls we have identified:

1. Against Unity as Discovery

String theory is often portrayed as “revealing the underlying unity of forces,” implying that unity is a pre-existing essence waiting to be uncovered. Relationally, however, unity is never discovered; it is constructed. Unification is a symbolic achievement, the weaving together of domains into a coherent explanatory framework. By framing unity as something “out there” to be revealed, discourse risks naturalising coherence as inevitable and masking the relational work required to achieve it.

2. Against Vibrations as Physical Music

The ubiquitous metaphor of strings “vibrating at different frequencies” tempts a naïve musical ontology: the universe as a literal instrument, humming reality into being. This poetic imagery converts mathematical spectra into supposed physical oscillations, masking the perspectival cut inherent in theoretical representation. Vibrational metaphors seduce the imagination, but they conceal that these are tools for modelling potential relationships within a symbolic system, not literal physical processes.

3. Against the Theory of Everything

Perhaps the most dangerous lure is the promise of a “theory of everything.” This phrase implies ultimate closure, suggesting that reality can be fully captured by a single formalism. From a relational perspective, such closure is illusory. Theories are symbolic frameworks — provisional, perspectival, and contingent on the alignment of experiment, interpretation, and formalism. The quest for a TOE is not a search for pre-existing reality’s final secrets; it is the construction of a new, coherent frame within which our current understanding can be systematically aligned.

Connecting the Threads

Across these three critiques, a consistent pattern emerges. String theory’s language, imagery, and ambition repeatedly reify symbolic constructs, treat models as reality, and impose quasi-theological narratives of inevitability and finality. Unity is framed as hidden, vibrations as literal, and comprehensive closure as attainable. Each of these tendencies risks obscuring the relational nature of scientific knowledge: that physics is not about discovering a pre-given world, but about crafting coherent symbolic architectures that coordinate phenomena, measurement, and interpretation.

Recognising these pitfalls is not a rejection of string theory or of the pursuit of unification. Rather, it is an insistence on conceptual clarity: metaphors are indispensable for thought, but they must be understood as provisional, relational, and semiotic, never as ontological guarantees. The value of string theory lies not in its promise of ultimate truth, but in its capacity to generate structures of alignment — symbolic frames within which the universe, in all its complexity, can be meaningfully explored.

By reading string theory through this lens, we can retain its explanatory power while avoiding the seductive traps of literalism and absolutism. We honour the ambition of the theory without mistaking ambition for finality.

6 Patterns of Construal: Closing the Arc

The critiques of force, energy, space, mathematical structures, and universality reveal a recurrent architecture in physics’ discourse. Across domains, a single structural habit emerges: relational potential is projected as absolute decree. What is modal — degrees of possibility, structured potential, relational alignment — is routinely misread as modulation, as if reality itself compels the patterns we observe.

Force is not an agent; it is a shorthand for tendencies in interactions. Energy is not a substance; it is a symbolic measure of relational states. Space is not a passive container; it is enacted through relational arrangements and perspectival cuts. Mathematics is not the script of the cosmos; it is a lens for codifying and stabilising patterns. Universality is not a law written into nature; it is the recognition of recurring relational structures across frames.

Taken together, these posts expose a rhythm in physics: the world is construed, and the construal is repeatedly mistaken for necessity. Modality — what can, might, or may occur — is misread as modulation — what must occur. This pattern explains why physics treats laws, constants, symmetries, and forces as absolute, when in reality they are relational artefacts of observation, measurement, and modelling.

Recognising this architecture does not diminish the power or beauty of physics. It reframes it: a practice of making intelligible the relational potential of reality, rather than uncovering decrees embedded in matter. Seeing the frame, again, reveals the universe not as compelled by law, but as a landscape of structured possibility interpreted through perspective.

This arc closes with clarity: the familiar metaphors and assumptions of physics — force, energy, space, mathematics, universality — are tools for making sense of relational patterns, not ontological absolutes.

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.

Gravity as Glue

In much of a Nature article (here), gravity is presented as the force that “holds things together,” a cosmic glue that binds matter and space-time. Such language is common in popular accounts: planets orbit because gravity tethers them, galaxies spin because gravity threads them into coherent forms. The metaphor is intuitively appealing but ontologically misleading.

Gravity is not a substance, nor is it a universal adhesive acting independently in the world. In relational terms, gravity is a systemic construal — a symbolic articulation of how events and matter align across the relational field of space-time. To speak of gravity as glue conflates the observed patterns of relation with an inherent property of matter or space.

This framing also masks the constructive role of the theorist. The selection of reference frames, the imposition of metric relations, and the modelling of curvature are all symbolic acts that instantiate the patterns we call gravitational phenomena. We do not uncover “glue” in the world; we construct a coherent symbolic system that captures the relational regularities among events.

Treating gravity as glue naturalises a model of relational alignment as an ontological fact. It encourages the assumption that the patterns of interaction are properties waiting to be discovered, rather than emergent structures contingent on our symbolic cuts.

A relational ontology insists: gravity is not a thing sticking the universe together. It is a patterning of potential and actualised relations, a way of construing the coherence of events. The universe does not require glue; it requires a lens — and that lens is ours to articulate.

Dark Energy as a Force

Cosmologists often describe dark energy as a mysterious force pushing galaxies apart, accelerating the expansion of the universe. Textbooks and popular accounts depict it as a ghostly hand, invisible yet omnipresent, acting on matter across cosmic distances. The metaphor is vivid, almost cinematic: dark energy is the universe’s secret engine, tugging at the stars.

Yet this framing is deeply misleading. It treats dark energy as a thing exerting pressure in space, as if the cosmos were a stage and the energy a player on it. Relationally, there is no external agent “pushing” galaxies. Expansion is not driven by a substance; it is a re-scaling of relational metrics, a shift in the pattern of distances and potentialities that define cosmic structure.

Calling it a force suggests agency and substance, obscuring the relational dynamics at play. Dark energy is not something separate from the universe, acting upon it; it is a feature of the evolving relationships between phenomena, not a hidden hand manipulating objects.

Metaphors of pushing and pulling seduce us into a Newtonian worldview where space is a container and matter are objects floating within it. In truth, the universe does not accelerate because it is being acted upon; it accelerates because the relational fabric itself changes.

Dark energy does not push; it manifests — the unfolding of relations, not the motion of a secret agent.

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.

The Vacuum as Stage

Physics texts often depict the vacuum as an inert stage upon which particles and fields act. This is a subtle but pervasive metaphor. In truth, the vacuum is alive with relational potential, a field of interactions waiting to be instantiated. Particles, fields, and forces do not act on a neutral backdrop; they co-actualise the vacuum itself. To imagine it as a stage encourages a Newtonian, substance-oriented mindset, hiding the dynamic relationality of space itself.

The Push-Pull Illusion

Forces are often depicted as literal pushes and pulls, transmitted across space. This is a metaphor that misrepresents the relational nature of interaction. Forces are descriptions of changes in relational constraints, not literal contact or transmission of “stuff.” Gravity does not “pull,” electromagnetism does not “push.” These are shorthand for patterns of actualisation within relational systems. Treating forces as mechanical contact encourages a substance-based, mechanistic view of reality that obscures relational emergence.