Cosmology - The Rise of Relational Physics (2)

Illustration by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

ESSAY TWO

The Rise of Relational Physics

From Particles to Information, Entanglement, and Emergence

Toward a Relational Ontology of Reality

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

What is real is not substance, but coherence that endures.

- R.E. Slater

The many become one, and are increased by one.

-  Alfred North Whitehead

The universe is not a collection of things, but a communion of subjects.

- Thomas Berry

Series Objective

To articulate a relational ontology grounded in contemporary

physics, in which reality is understood as coherence, information,

and process rather than substance and isolation.

Series Architecture

What Is Reality? series → foundational ontology

Cosmic Becoming Cycle → poetic and metaphysical expansion

Embodied Process Realism → formal philosophical framework

Processual Divine Coherence → theological bridge

Essay Two Structure

Preface

Section I - From Particles to Fields to Information

Section II - Entanglement and the Fabric of Spacetime

Section III - Emergence and the Structure of Reality

Section IV - Coherence and the Real

Bibliography

Appendix A - Materialism, Physicalism, & Processualism

---

Illustration by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

Preface

Toward a Relational Cosmology of Becoming

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
- Werner Heisenberg

---

I. From Critique to Development

If the first essay sought to destabilize the graviton paradigm and introduce coherence as a candidate ontology, the present essay asks a further question:

whether physics itself is already moving in this direction.

In the previous essay, we proposed that gravity may be more accurately understood not as a force mediated by particles, but as the persistence of relational coherence across the unfolding of cosmic becoming. This proposal, while philosophical in form, was grounded in tensions internal to contemporary physics - particularly the difficulty of reconciling general relativity with quantum theory.

Today's essay will turn from critique to development...

For if gravity is not fundamental in the way traditionally assumed, then the question shifts:

what underlying structures give rise to the phenomena we describe as gravitational?

---

II. A Transformation Within Physics

Increasingly, developments across contemporary physics suggest that reality is not fundamentally composed of particles, but of relations - expressed through information, entanglement, and emergent structure.

Over the past several decades, a quiet transformation has been underway. Concepts once considered secondary - entropy, information, correlation - have moved toward the center of physical explanation. In fields ranging from black hole thermodynamics to quantum information theory, these concepts are no longer merely descriptive, but constitutive.

    Spacetime itself may be emergent.

            Structure may precede object.

                    Interaction may define identity.

This essay explores that transformation.

It argues that contemporary physics is pointing towards a more relational understanding of reality - one in which structure, coherence, and constraint precede, and give rise to, what we call objects. In this light, gravity itself may be understood not as a fundamental interaction, but as a large-scale expression of relational coherence stabilizing across scale.

---

III. Project Trajectory: From Reality to Meaning

This work unfolds within a broader trajectory, structured across four interrelated phases:

Phase I – Reality (Foundational Ontology)

An inquiry into the nature of the real as relational, coherent, and processual rather than substantial or isolated.

Phase II – Cosmology (Structure and Emergence)

An examination of the universe as dynamically structured, in which spacetime, matter, and interaction arise through relational processes across scale.

Phase III – Ontological Deepening (Meaning and Persistence)

A reflection on how value, persistence, and directionality emerge within a relational cosmos.

Phase IV – Theological Horizon (Relational Divinity)

A movement toward a naturalized theological interpretation, in which the structures of reality themselves open toward questions of participation, coherence, and the nature of the divine.

These phases do not represent separate domains, but a continuous unfolding -

from description to meaning, from structure to significance. 

---

IV. Direction of Inquiry: From Physics to Ontology

The present essay then proceeds from a growing recognition within contemporary physics: that reality is increasingly described not in terms of isolated particles, but through relations, information, and emergent structure.

In light of these developments, this project follows a conceptual trajectory:

from materialism to physicalism to processual interpretation (refer Appdx A)

Materialism, once grounded in substance and matter, has given way to physicalism, which incorporates fields, energy, and spacetime as fundamental. Yet physicalism, in its descriptive strength, does not by itself determine the ontology of what these structures are.

This project therefore advances a further step:

toward a process-relational ontology in which reality is understood as the persistence of relational coherence across scale.

Within this framework, what physics describes is not rejected, but reframed - situated within a broader account of reality as structured, dynamic, and continuously unfolding.

It is this interpretive movement that the present work seeks to develop under the name:

Embodied Process Realism

---

V. Tables

---

Illustration by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

I. Relational Structures in Contemporary Physics

“What we take to be fundamental may be less about what things are, and more about how they are related.”

---

1. From Description to Structure

Contemporary physics continues to employ the language of particles, fields, and interactions. Yet, in practice, many of its most successful theories no longer rely on strictly separable entities as their primary units of description.

Instead, physicalist systems are increasingly represented in expanded terms of structured relationships - utilizing mathematical and physical configurations in which what can be specified most precisely are not isolated properties, but the constraints, correlations, and interactions that bind systems together.

This shift does not eliminate objects. Rather, it situates them within a broader framework in which their behavior and identity are defined through their participation in relational structures.

---

2. Non-Separability in Quantum Systems

One of the clearest expressions of this shift appears in quantum theory.

In entangled systems, the formal description does not permit a decomposition into independent parts. The system must be described as a single, unified state, even when its components are spatially separated. What is physically meaningful is not the independent state of each part, but the correlation structure that relates them.

This is not a philosophical interpretation imposed upon the theory. It is a feature of the theory’s formalism itself: the mathematics requires a relational description.

---

3. Fields, Excitations, and the Status of Particles

A similar development appears within quantum field theory.

Particles, often treated as fundamental units, are more accurately described as localized excitations of underlying fields. These fields extend across spacetime, and what we identify as a particle corresponds to a structured event within that field.

In this framework, what appears as a discrete object is already dependent upon a continuous, relational substrate. The “thing” is inseparable from the field within which it arises.

---

4. Information and Constraint in Physical Systems

In other domains, particularly in black hole thermodynamics and quantum information theory, physical description increasingly centers on information, entropy, and constraint.

The entropy of a black hole scales with its surface area, suggesting that physical information is encoded in boundary relations rather than in volumetric substance. More broadly, the behavior of physical systems can often be understood in terms of how information is distributed, constrained, and transformed.

Here again, what is primary is not an isolated object, but a structured pattern of relations - a configuration that governs how systems can evolve.

---

5. Emergence and the Status of Spacetime

These developments converge in ongoing research into the nature of spacetime itself.

Across several approaches to quantum gravity, spacetime is no longer assumed to be fundamental. Instead, it is increasingly treated as something that may emerge from deeper, non-geometric structures - often described in terms of networks, correlations, or informational relationships.

In such approaches, spacetime geometry is not the starting point, but the result of more basic relational configurations. What appears as curvature at large scales may reflect the collective organization of underlying interactions.

---

6. Interpretive Trajectory: From Substance to Coherence

The developments outlined above do not, by themselves, establish a new ontology. Physics, as a discipline, remains primarily descriptive - concerned with modeling behavior rather than prescribing metaphysical interpretation.

Yet these descriptions exert pressure on earlier frameworks.

Materialism, grounded in the primacy of substance and discrete matter, proves increasingly limited in a context where fields, non-local correlations, and emergent structures play a central role. Physicalism represents a significant expansion, incorporating fields, energy, and spacetime into the ontology of the physical.

And yet, even physicalism leaves open a further question: whether these structures are best understood as things, or as patterns of relation through which things arise.

In light of contemporary physics, a further interpretive step becomes available:

that reality is not composed of independent entities which subsequently relate, but of relational structures which stabilize into what we recognize as entities.

It is this shift that this project develops under the name:

Embodied Process Realism -

an approach in which reality is understood as the processual persistence of relational coherence across scale, through which structure, stability, and embodiment emerge.

... refer to Appendix A re comparison of materialist v physicalist v processual ontologies ...

From the process perspective, the movement from materialism to physicalism and toward processual ontology can be best understood not as a rejection of prior frameworks, but as an expansion in which the emphasis shifts from substance, to structure, to relational persistence and coherence.

---

7. Transition

If physics increasingly describes a world structured by relations, information, and emergence, then the question deepens:

what kind of underlying reality gives rise to such descriptions?

It is to this question - and to the theoretical frameworks that attempt to answer it - that we now turn.

---

II. Theoretical Pathways Beyond Particle Ontology

“If gravity is not best understood as a particle-mediated force, then the question shifts: what kinds of structures give rise to gravitational phenomena?”

---

1. From Description to Construction

If the preceding section demonstrated that contemporary physics increasingly describes reality in relational terms, the present section turns to a more constructive question:

What kinds of theoretical frameworks attempt to build reality from such relations?

In contrast to approaches that begin with particles and forces defined within a pre-existing spacetime, a growing number of research programs begin from a different premise:

• that spacetime itself may not be fundamental
• that geometry may emerge from deeper structures
• that relations, rather than entities, may be primary

These approaches do not yet form a unified theory. But taken together, they mark a directional shift in how gravity and spacetime are being conceptualized.

---

2. Loop Quantum Gravity: Geometry Without Background

Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) represents one of the most direct attempts to formulate a quantum theory of gravity without relying on a background spacetime.

Rather than treating space as a continuous arena in which events occur, LQG proposes that:

• space itself is quantized
• its structure is composed of discrete elements
• these elements form networks (spin networks) describing relational geometry

In this framework:

• geometry is not given in advance
• it is constructed from the relations between nodes
• gravitational behavior arises from changes in this relational structure

Gravity, here, is not mediated by particles - it is the dynamical evolution of geometric relations themselves.

*Note: In classical general relativity, “geometry” refers to the curvature of spacetime itself. In many contemporary approaches to quantum gravity, however, geometry is no longer taken as fundamental, but as something that emerges from deeper relational structures. In this context, “geometry” names not a pre-given arena, but the stabilized form of underlying relations.

Within a processual framework we get these several alignments:

• geometry = coherence made visible
• curvature = constraint of relation
• gravity = persistence of that constraint across scale

---

3. Causal Dynamical Triangulations: Spacetime as Emergent Assembly

Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT) approaches the problem differently.

Instead of quantizing geometry directly, it:

• builds spacetime from discrete building blocks (simplexes)
• sums over possible configurations (path integrals)
• enforces causal structure as a constraint

Remarkably, when these configurations are aggregated, they produce:

• large-scale spacetime behavior
• structures resembling our observed universe

In CDT:

• spacetime is not assumed
• it is assembled from relational configurations
• macroscopic geometry emerges from microscopic combinatorics

---

Causal Set Theory (CST)

4. Causal Set Theory: Order Without Geometry

Causal Set Theory takes relational thinking even further. It proposes that spacetime is fundamentally:

• a discrete set of events
• ordered by causal relations

There is:

• no continuous geometry at the base level
• no background spacetime
• only relations of “before” and “after”

From this minimal structure:

• spacetime geometry is expected to emerge
• distance and curvature become derived properties

Here, reality is not built from particles or fields, but from ordered relations themselves.

---

5. Asymptotic Safety: Structure Without Breakdown

Asymptotic Safety takes a different route. Asymptotic Safety, or "Structure Without Breakdown," refers to a quantum field theory approach to gravity where coupling constants do not diverge at high energies, but rather approach a non-Gaussian fixed point (NGFP). This creates a "safe" UV (high energy ultraviolet) completion of gravity without needing new, exotic ingredients.

Rather than abandoning field theory, it asks:

Can gravity remain a quantum field theory if treated non-perturbatively?

It proposes that:

• gravitational interactions approach a stable fixed point at high energies
• infinities can be controlled
• spacetime retains its dynamical character

While this approach still uses field-theoretic language, it shifts emphasis toward:

• global structural consistency
• scale-dependent behavior
• the stability of relational dynamics across energy regimes

It suggests that what matters most is not particle exchange, but the coherence of structure across scales.

---

Recommended YouTube Videos

The Asymptotic Safety Paradigm for Gravity and Matter by Astrid Eichhorn: A comprehensive talk on how this paradigm goes beyond effective field theory.

Asymptotically Safe Gravity! | with Aaron Held: Discusses why we need to quantize gravity and how asymptotic safety provides a potential solution.

A fractal universe? Asymptotically safe quantum gravity: Explores the intriguing possibility that spacetime might have a fractal structure at tiny scales.

The five most promising ways to quantize gravity by Sabine Hossenfelder: A broader overview that places Asymptotically Safe Gravity alongside String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity.

Is Quantum Gravity safe? | with Alessia Platania: An interview-style video discussing the safety of quantum gravity and its intersections with other theories

---

6. Convergence: Toward Relational Foundations

These approaches differ significantly in method and mathematics. They are not reducible to a single framework. Yet, they share several striking features:

• Background independence (spacetime not assumed)
• Relational construction (structure from relations)
• Emergence (geometry arises, rather than precedes)
• De-emphasis of particle ontology

Taken together, they suggest that:

gravity may not originate in particles at all,
but in the organization of relational structures across scale.

---

7. Interpretive Trajectory

At this point, a philosophical observation becomes increasingly difficult to ignore.

If:

• spacetime can emerge
• geometry can be constructed
• relations can precede objects

then the question is no longer simply how gravity works,
but:

what kind of ontology best accommodates such a universe?

Without forcing a conclusion, the direction is suggestive:

• not substance → interaction
• but relation → stabilization → structure

In this light, gravity may be understood not as something added to the universe, but as something arising from:

the persistence and organization of relational coherence across scale

---

8. Transition

These theoretical pathways do not yet resolve quantum gravity. But they collectively indicate a shift:

• from particles to relations
• from background to emergence
• from force to structure

The next step is to examine the conceptual language through which this shift is being expressed:

• information
• entropy
• entanglement
• coherence

It is to these concepts - and their growing centrality in physics - that we now turn.

---

IV. Coda - Coherence and the Real

“What appears as spacetime curvature may be the macroscopic expression of deeper relational structures—patterns of coherence unfolding across the ontological fabric of the cosmos.”

---

Across contemporary physics, no single theory has yet resolved the problem of "quantum" gravity. The frameworks surveyed remain incomplete, provisional, and in many cases incompatible.

And yet, taken together, they exhibit a striking convergence. They suggest that:

• spacetime may not be fundamental
• geometry may be emergent
• systems may be defined by information and constraint
• relations may precede objects

These developments do not compel a single interpretation. But they do exert a directional pressure. They shift attention:

• from particles to relations
• from background structures to emergent organization
• from interaction to constraint and coherence

---

In this light, the problem of gravity can be reconsidered. If gravity is not best understood as a particle-mediated force, then the question becomes:

what kind of underlying reality gives rise to gravitational behavior at all?

The answer suggested - though not yet formalized within a single theory - is that:

gravitational phenomena may arise from the large-scale organization and persistence of relational structures

That is:

• not from exchange
• but from coherence

---

This does not eliminate existing frameworks. Even if a graviton were eventually discovered, the deeper implication would remain:

that such a particle would itself participate in a broader relational structure whose persistence cannot be reduced to exchange alone

The question, therefore, is not simply whether gravity has a carrier particle, but whether:

what is most fundamental is not the carrier, but the coherence within which any carrier could exist

---

From this perspective, a broader philosophical implication emerges. If contemporary physics increasingly describes reality in terms of:

• information
• entropy
• entanglement
• coherence

then realism itself must be reconsidered. Not abandoned - but reformulated.

---

We may state the emerging insight simply:

Reality is not fundamentally composed of independent entities, but of relational structures that persist through coherence across scale.

Within this framework:

• structure replaces substance as primary
• persistence replaces static existence
• relation replaces isolation

Thus, the movement traced in this essay marks not the conclusion of a theory, but the emergence of a possibility: of a realism grounded not in things, but in the enduring coherence of relations

---

Transition to Essay 3

If this is so, then the next task is not merely scientific, but ontological.

We must ask:

What would a realism look like if coherence - rather than substance - were taken as fundamental? 

It is to this question that the next essay turns..

---

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Relational Structures, Emergence, and Coherence

---

Quantum Gravity & Foundational Frameworks

Rovelli, Carlo. Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Rovelli, Carlo. Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity. New York: Riverhead Books, 2017.

Ambjørn, Jan, Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and Renate Loll. “The Universe from Scratch.” Contemporary Physics 47, no. 2 (2006): 103–117.

Loll, Renate. “Quantum Gravity from Causal Dynamical Triangulations: A Review.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 37, no. 1 (2020): 013002.

Bombelli, Luca, Joohan Lee, David Meyer, and Rafael Sorkin. “Space-Time as a Causal Set.” Physical Review Letters 59, no. 5 (1987): 521–524.

Sorkin, Rafael D. “Causal Sets: Discrete Gravity.” In Lectures on Quantum Gravity, edited by Andrés Gomberoff and Don Marolf, 305–327. New York: Springer, 2005.

Weinberg, Steven. “Ultraviolet Divergences in Quantum Theories of Gravitation.” In General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel, 790–831. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Reuter, Martin, and Frank Saueressig. Quantum Gravity and the Functional Renormalization Group: The Road Towards Asymptotic Safety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

---

Quantum Information, Entropy, and Holography

Bekenstein, Jacob D. “Black Holes and Entropy.” Physical Review D 7, no. 8 (1973): 2333–2346.

Hawking, Stephen W. “Particle Creation by Black Holes.” Communications in Mathematical Physics 43 (1975): 199–220.

’t Hooft, Gerard. “Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity.” arXiv:gr-qc/9310026.

Susskind, Leonard. “The World as a Hologram.” Journal of Mathematical Physics 36, no. 11 (1995): 6377–6396.

Preskill, John. “Quantum Information and Physics: Some Future Directions.” Journal of Modern Optics 47, no. 2–3 (2000): 127–137.

---

Entanglement, Emergence, and Spacetime

Van Raamsdonk, Mark. “Building Up Spacetime with Quantum Entanglement.” General Relativity and Gravitation 42 (2010): 2323–2329.

Maldacena, Juan. “The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity.” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 38 (1999): 1113–1133.

Swingle, Brian. “Entanglement Renormalization and Holography.” Physical Review D 86 (2012): 065007.

---

Philosophy of Physics & Ontology

Ladyman, James, and Don Ross. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

French, Steven. The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Kuhlmann, Meinard. “Quantum Field Theory.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta.

Maudlin, Tim. Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.

---

Process Philosophy & Relational Thought

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. New York: Free Press, 1978.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the Modern World. New York: Free Press, 1997.

Bergson, Henri. Creative Evolution. New York: Dover, 1998.

Rescher, Nicholas. Process Philosophy: A Survey of Basic Issues. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996.

Seibt, Johanna. “Process Philosophy.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta.

---

Complexity, Systems, and Emergence

Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. Order Out of Chaos. New York: Bantam Books, 1984.

Anderson, Philip W. “More Is Different.” Science 177, no. 4047 (1972): 393–396.

---

Supplementary / Conceptual Bridges

Wheeler, John Archibald. “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links.” In Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, edited by W. Zurek. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1990.

Zurek, Wojciech H. “Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical.” Physics Today 44, no. 10 (1991): 36–44.

---

APPENDIX A

Materialist v Physicalist v Process Ontologies

---

Materialist, physicalist, and processual ontologies differ primarily in what they take to be fundamental in reality - whether inert matter v. physical structures and fields v. dynamic relational processes.

Each ontology offers not only a description of the world, but a framework for interpreting how stability, change, and persistence arise within it.

• Materialism generally posits that matter is the fundamental substance of nature, and all things, including mind, arise from material interactions.
• Physicalism extends materialism to include forms of physicality beyond just "matter," such as energy, spacetime, physical laws, and forces, as described by physics.
• Processual Philosophy challenges both, arguing that reality is not made of "things" (substances) at all, but rather of processes, events, and continuous change (becoming).

Materialist Ontology (Materialism)

• Fundamental Unit: Inert matter or substance.
• Core Belief: Everything that exists is either matter or dependent on matter for its existence.
• View of Mind: Consciousness is secondary, emerging from material interactions (often reducing mind to brain activity).
• Limitation: Historically, classical materialism struggled to explain non-solid phenomena like gravity or thoughts.

Physicalist Ontology (Physicalism)

• Fundamental Unit: Entities and properties studied by physics (energy, forces, spacetime, fields).
• Core Belief: Everything "supervenes" on the physical—meaning no two possible worlds can be identical in their physical properties but differ in their mental or social properties.
• View of Mind: Mental states are identified with, or realized by, physical states.
• Difference from Materialism: While often used interchangeably, physicalism is considered more modern, embracing quantum mechanics and energy, whereas traditional materialism is tied to "solid" matter.

Processual Ontology (Process Philosophy)

• Fundamental Unit: Processes, events, and relations rather than static substances.
• Core Belief: "Things" are artificial, static boundaries we impose on a dynamic, constantly changing world. Reality is a continuous unfolding ("becoming").
• Key Proponents: Alfred North Whitehead, Henri Bergson.
• Contrast with Others: Processual philosophy reinterprets the substantival assumptions of both materialism and physicalism by suggesting that what appears as stable “things” may be better understood as relatively enduring patterns within ongoing processes. As example, in process-relational ontology, entities (like a tree or forest) emerge from their relations.

Summary of Differences

Feature	Materialism	Physicalism	Processual
Basic "Stuff"	Matter (Inert)	Physicality (Energy/Forces)	Processes/Events
Core Question	What is this made of?	How does this behave?	What is happening?
Ontology Type	Substantialist/Monist	Substantialist/Monist	Relationist/Dynamic
Change	Secondary to Substance	Secondary to Structure	Fundamental
Mind	Emergent material	Supervenient physical	Event-based/Relational

While materialism and physicalism are often treated as synonymous in contemporary debates, they differ in scope, with physicalism being broader. Both, however, are often contrasted with process philosophy, which argues that focusing on being (substance) instead of becoming (process) is a fundamental error.

---

APPLICATIONS IN THE SCIENCES TODAY

In contemporary science, these three philosophies serve as different "operating systems" for how researchers interpret data and build theories. While physicalism is the most widely accepted "default" in modern labs, processual philosophy is gaining significant ground in the life sciences and quantum physics.

1. Physicalism: The Modern Scientific Default

Physicalism is currently the dominant worldview in science because it is broad enough to include things that aren't just "matter" in the traditional "Materialist" sense.

• Neuroscience: The majority of neuroscientists operate under physicalist assumptions, treating the mind as a product of physical brain activity (neurons, chemical signals, and electrical impulses).
• Fundamental Physics: It easily accommodates quantum fields, dark matter, and spacetime curvature, which classical materialism struggled to explain.
• Key Concept: Supervenience. Scientists often assume that "higher-level" facts (like biological or psychological ones) "supervene" on physical facts - meaning you can't change the mind without changing the physical state of the brain.

2. Processual Philosophy: The Rising Alternative in Biology

Many scientists argue that treating living things as "static objects" (substances) hinders progress. A "processual research agenda" is currently being applied to several fields:

• Theoretical Biology: In works like Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology, researchers argue that an organism is not a "thing" but a stable metabolic flow. This shift is helping scientists better understand cancer genetics, development, and evolution as dynamic systems rather than fixed blueprints.
• Quantum Theory: Some interpretations of physics (like Loop Quantum Gravity) suggest that the universe is made of events rather than "particles," making process philosophy a natural fit for describing the subatomic world.
• Environmental Ecosystems and Ecology: It provides a framework for viewing ecosystems as interconnected sequences of occurrences rather than a collection of separate species.

3. Materialism: The Historical Anchor

Strict, "old-school" materialism, is increasingly rare in high-level physics but remains a powerful tool for practical application.

• Classical Engineering: When building bridges or engines, scientists still use a materialist framework because "matter in motion" remains an effective abstraction for 99.9% of macroscopic science.
• Methodological Materialism: Many scientists adopt materialism not as a final truth, but as a method. They look for material causes because they are empirically testable, even if they suspect the underlying reality might be more complex.