Spacetime: A Critique of Ontological Overreach
General Relativity (GR) commits a category error by conflating its internal mathematical consistency with ontological universality.
This is not an attack on GR’s validity within its domain, but a radical re-contextualization of what that domain actually is. The conflict is not in nature; it is in the vocabulary; which we now call the “spacetime wordmess.”
Spacetime as a Synthetic, Scale-Layer Construct
Ontology is the systematic philosophical investigation into the nature and structure of being: what kinds of entities exist, under what conditions they exist, and how they relate to one another.
There is a critical distinction between a mathematical construct being internally consistent and that construct being ontologically universal. Even if the mathematics of “spacetime” is flawless within GR, nothing guarantees that the synthetic construct it represents is scale-invariant or observer-independent in the way GR silently assumes. Treating the internal coherence of a model as proof of the universality of its ontology is a category error that has shaped modern physics for a century.
1. Spacetime is not fundamental; it is a choice of variables
General relativity proceeds by selecting a smooth 4-dimensional manifold and equipping it with a metric tensor. This is a modeling choice, not the discovery of a physical substance. The celebrated fusion of “space” and “time” into “spacetime” emerges from:
- local Lorentz symmetry
- the invariance of the spacetime interval
- the assumption of a differentiable manifold
- treating the metric as the gravitational field
Nothing in this list enforces scale universality. These ingredients only guarantee local geometric behavior for observers using rods, clocks, and electromagnetic signals that behave exactly as the theory assumes; while on the surface of Earth.
If rods, clocks, and radiation behave differently across scales, if each scale operates within its own radiation-defined coordinate system, then “spacetime” loses universality. GR assumes, but does not prove, that the manifold-plus-metric framework is the correct substrate at all scales. That assumption is methodological, not empirical.
2. The fusion fails when operational definitions of “space” and “time” change across Scale
GR’s geometry is operationally defined using tools natural to one specific scale:
- electromagnetic light signals
- atomic clocks
- macroscopic rulers
If a different scale uses different physical processes with different characteristic velocities, oscillation rates, or energy densities, then the metric at large scale is not the same entity as the metric at small scale; nor is the volume of its coordinate system the same.
In that case, “spacetime” is not a universal stage but a layer-dependent operational construct emerging from scale-specific measurement procedures.
This places spacetime in the same conceptual category as:
- an index of refraction: valid and predictive, but medium-dependent
- a thermodynamic variable: coherent and powerful, but emergent
- a fluid continuum: smooth and geometric, but only above a resolution threshold
None of this breaks GR internally. It simply relocates GR to where it belongs: a hydrodynamics-like macroscopic limit whose smooth geometry describes bulk behavior, not fundamental ontology.
3. Why “spacetime” acquired universality it never earned
The term gained authority not by logical demonstration but by historical momentum:
- it unified classical mechanics and electromagnetism
- its predictions were extraordinarily successful
- it possessed mathematical elegance
- it became the standard language for celestial mechanics and GPS-era precision
Its acceptance masked a silent premise: that the manifold and its metric are scale-independent, resolution-independent, and observer-independent structures. This has never been experimentally established—it is simply part of the architecture of the theory.
Concepts can acquire prestige disproportionate to their ontological grounding. Had the same entity been called “metric-layer fluid,” the physics community would treat its universality with far more caution.
4. This critique is not “anti-math”
The issue is not mathematics but the misuse of mathematics. The mistakes are category mistakes:
- elevating a coordinate description into an ontological claim
- treating a modeling convenience as a universal substrate
- assuming differentiable manifolds apply at arbitrarily small or large scales
- assuming measurement procedures fuse cleanly across all scales
The flaw is physics mistaking a mathematically successful representation, built on specific operational assumptions, for a universally valid description of what exists.
This is the root of unification failure between GR and QFT: each presupposes different scale-locked languages while pretending to speak a single universal one.
5. The label “spacetime” obscures its synthetic and emergent character
Alternative labels such as “vacuumvelocity” or even deliberately provocative ones like “thoughtexperimentforcedintotruth” reveal the problem: the standard term carries far more metaphysical authority than the concept has earned.
The object we currently call “spacetime” is almost certainly:
- synthetic
- emergent
- scale-layered
- operational rather than ontological
At best, it is a patchwork: pseudo-architectural drawings of distinct energy regimes taped together at their edges and spread across the gymnasium floor while men in suits congratulate one another over peer review before heading to lunch.
References and Supporting Literature
Vera, Michael. The Unified Theory of Energy. https://www.michaelvera.org/Unified_Theory_of_Energy.html
Dieks, Dennis (ed.). The Ontology of Spacetime. Philosophy and Foundations of Physics, Vol. 1. Elsevier, 2006. https://www.sciencedirect.com/bookseries/philosophy-and-foundations-of-physics/vol/1/suppl/C
Romero, Gustavo E. “On the Ontology of Spacetime: Substantivalism, Relationism, Eternalism, and Emergence.” Foundations of Science 23, no. 2 (2018): 1–18. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-017-9541-z
Romero, Gustavo E. “The Ontology of General Relativity.” arXiv:1301.7330 [gr-qc], 2013. https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.7330
Bain, Jonathan. “Against Spacetime Substance: A Relational Interpretation of General Relativity.” PhilSci-Archive, 2024. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/27279/1/Against_SpaceTime_Substance.pdf
Huggett, Nick, and Carl Hoefer. “Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Motion.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2022). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-theories/
Crowther, Karen. “Appearing Out of Nowhere: The Emergence of Spacetime in Quantum Gravity.” arXiv:1410.0345 [physics.hist-ph], 2014. https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.0345
Huggett, Nick, and Christian Wüthrich. Out of Nowhere: The Emergence of Spacetime in Quantum Theories of Gravity. Oxford University Press, 2025. https://beyondspacetime.net/…
Nottale, Laurent. Scale Relativity and Fractal Space-Time. World Scientific, 2011. https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p752
“Induced Gravity.” Wikipedia (citing Sakharov and subsequent literature). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Moskowitz, Clara. “What Is Spacetime Really Made Of?” Scientific American, June 2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-spacetime-really-made-of/
Dorato, Mauro. “Substantivalism, Relationism, and Structural Spacetime Realism.” Foundations of Physics 30, no. 10 (2000): 1605–1628. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026442015519
Dewar, Neil. “The Epistemology of Spacetime.” Philosophy Compass 17, no. 3 (2022): e12821. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.12821
“Philosophy of Space and Time.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time
Pitts, J. Brian. “The Implications of General Covariance for the Ontology and Ideology of Spacetime.” Philosophy of Physics (Elsevier), 2006. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871177406010011
Skow, Bradford (ed.). “Time.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2023). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/