Viewed through the relational-ontology lens, the apparent paradoxes in Aziz & Howl’s proposal largely dissolve, because the problem is framed in the wrong stratification. Let me unpack this carefully.
1. Behaviour versus ontology
The “problem” arises in conventional terms:
Entanglement arises ⇒ gravity must be quantum.
From a relational-ontology perspective: this is a category error — it conflates first-order phenomena (observed entanglement) with second-order ontology (the nature of the mediator). Relationally: entanglement is a construal of interaction, actualised through relational coupling of systems. It does not compel a claim about the intrinsic register of gravity.
2. The mediator as relational field
Gravity is treated in physics as a potential or a field; in relational terms, it’s a system-as-theory, a structured set of possibilities for how matter may interact. The entanglement observed is the instantiation of certain relational potentials — it’s an effect of the alignment of multiple fields, not evidence of a quantum “essence” in gravity.
3. Scaling and context
Aziz & Howl emphasise scaling behaviour (entanglement strength vs mass, distance, etc.). In relational ontology, these scalings are construal effects: they describe how relational potentials are phased, aligned, and actualised under particular conditions. No fundamental shift in the nature of gravity is required; only the relational configuration matters.
4. Why the “dilemma” disappears
-
The classical-versus-quantum question becomes secondary: what matters is the pattern of relations and their actualisation.
-
Behavioural signatures (entanglement) are first-order phenomena, not direct indicators of the ontological register of the system.
-
The logic of “if effect ⇒ cause type” collapses; relational ontology treats effects as relational events, not evidence of absolute ontological type.
5. Metaphorical resonance for symbolic systems
This mirrors symbolic infrastructures: a system can display “non-classical” behaviour (unexpected alignments, emergent correlations) without the underlying symbolic medium itself being fundamentally altered. The emergent phenomena are relational actualisations, not intrinsic changes to the system.
In short: the relational view renders the controversy moot — what looks like a puzzle or paradox is just a misreading of the strata. Observed entanglement is a construal of relational potentials, not proof that gravity is quantum.
