 |
| Illustration by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT |
physics, in which reality is understood as coherence, information,
and process rather than as substance, isolation, and atomistic
models of reality.
Cosmic Becoming Cycle → poetic and metaphysical expansion
Embodied Process Realism → formal philosophical framework
Processual Divine Coherence → theological bridge
Section I - From Objects to Events
Section II - Persistence as Achievement
Section III - Constraint and the Structure of Continuity
Section IV - Gravity as the Expression of Continuity
Section V - Gravity and the Persistence of Structure
Section VI - Coherence and the Real
Bibliography
Preface
- metaphysical
- ontological (cosmology)
- field- and coherence-based.
- relational continuity
- processual coherence
- structural persistence
- phenomenologically
- through lived experience
- theologically (in terms of immanence)
- through an interiority-based analysis.
- interiority
- generative valuation
- purposiveness
- participatory depth
- Processual Consciousness (completed in previous essay)
- Value and Meaning
- Divine Coherence
- Ethics and Participation
- Cosmic Teleology
- one describes the structure of reality
- the other explores its lived depth
Introduction
If reality is not composed of static objects but of events, then persistence cannot be assumed - it must be explained.
What endures from one moment to the next is not a thing remaining identical to itself, but a pattern that continues across successive acts of becoming. The world, in this sense, is not made of substances that simply are, but of processes that continually occur-and-evolve.
This raises a fundamental question:
Why does anything persist at all?
Why does becoming not dissolve into discontinuity? Why does the universe not fragment into unrelated moments, each arising and vanishing without connection to what came before?
Experience suggests otherwise. The world exhibits continuity:
- patterns endure
- relations persist
- structures stabilize
There is, across time, a holding-together. A cosmic persistence.
This continuity cannot be taken as given. It must be accounted for as part of the very nature of reality.
At this point, physics offers a powerful description. Within the framework of modern science, gravity is understood not as a force acting between objects, but as the curvature of spacetime - the way mass and energy shape the geometry within which motion unfolds.
Yet even this profound insight leaves open a deeper question.
Gravity describes how bodies move within a structured continuum. But what accounts for the persistence of that continuum itself? What allows relational patterns to endure across successive moments of becoming?
If reality is fundamentally processual, then gravity must be reconsidered - not merely as geometry, but as a condition of continuity.
This essay proposes that:
Gravity is the expression of continuity within becoming.
Or more simply:
Gravity is the universe persistently holding itself together across time.
I. From Objects to Events
What endures is not a thing, but a pattern of becoming that continues. - R.E. Slater
The question of persistence forces a reconsideration of what we mean by a “thing” or a "substance".
In traditional metaphysics, reality has often been understood in terms of objects:
- discrete
- self-contained
- enduring through time
Change, within this framework, is secondary - something that happens to things that already exist.
A tree grows. A stone erodes. A planet moves.
In each case, the underlying assumption remains the same:
that something persists first, and changes afterward.
But this assumption becomes increasingly difficult to sustain for if we examine any so-called object closely, we find not a fixed entity, but a process - even within the entity itself:
- matter flows
- energy exchanges
- structure reorganizes
- relations shift continuously
What appears stable is, in fact, dynamically maintained.
Thus, what we call an “object” is not a self-subsisting thing, but a pattern of (energetic) continuity - a structured pattern of persistence across successive moments.
This shift - from objects to events - marks a fundamental transformation in ontology.
In a processual system:
- events are primary
- relations are constitutive
- persistence is achieved, not given
An entity, in this view, is not something that is and then changes, but something that:
continues through the process of becoming.
Each moment does not simply carry forward an identical substance. Rather, it arises out of prior conditions, inherits relational structure, and reconstitutes that structure in a new form.
What persists, then, is not identity in the strict sense, but:
- continuity of pattern
- coherence of relation
- stability of form across persistence of change
This allows us to restate the earlier claim with greater precision:
What endures is not a thing, but a pattern that continues through successive acts of becoming.
The implication is significant.
Persistence is no longer a primitive fact. It is not something to be assumed at the outset of inquiry.
Instead:
persistence becomes a problem to be explained.
Why do patterns hold?
Why does continuity prevail?
Why does becoming not dissolve into fragmentation?
These questions lead directly to the next step in the argument.
If persistence is achieved rather than given, then there must be conditions under which:
- continuity is maintained
- relations are carried forward
- becoming remains connected to itself
It is here that the concept of constraint enters - and with it, the possibility of reinterpreting gravity.
II. Persistence as Achievement
What persists is not carried forward unchanged, but achieved again-and-again in each moment.
- R.E. Slater
Each moment inherits the past, and becomes more than it was.
- paraphrase of A.N. Whitehead
What we call continuity - the enduring presence of forms, structures, and relations across time - is not a given feature of the universe. It is something that must be achieved, moment by moment.
Each processual event arises out of prior conditions. It does not emerge in isolation, nor does it simply replicate what came before. Rather, it inherits, transforms, and re-constitutes the relational structure from which it arises.
Thus, persistence is not the endurance of a substance, but the ongoing transmission of pattern.
This transmission involves three interrelated features - what Alfred North Whitehead describes as prehension, subjective aim, and concrescence:
- Past → Prehension (inheritance) - the reception of prior relational conditions
- Future → Subjective Aim (direction / selection) - the orientation of becoming toward possible forms of realization
- Unity → Concrescence (integration) - the unification of many influences into a single, actualized occurrence
These Whiteheadian designations correspond to - but not always in a strict or rigid one-to-one manner - as resonating/reflective corollaries to the processual terms used in Embodied Process Realism:
- inheritance - each moment receives the relational conditions of prior moments
- constraint with orientation (directional selection) - not all possibilities are equally available as becoming is shaped by what has come before
- integration - the many influences of the past are gathered into a new, unified occurrence
- The past is inherited
- the future is constrained with orientation
- The present becomes unified
II - Identity as Fluid
Through these processes, continuity is maintained.- dynamic rather than static
- approximate rather than exact
- sustained rather than assumed
What persists, therefore, is not a fixed identity in the strict sense, but:
coherence across difference.
As example:
- A river remains “the same” river, not because its substance is unchanged, but because its pattern of flow continues.
- A living organism persists, not as a fixed entity, but as a self-maintaining process of organization.
In each case, persistence is an achievement of coherence over time:
Persistence is not the endurance of a fixed identity,
but the continuity of identity's pattern across change.Identity is real - but its mode of persistence is processual.Identity persists - not as something unchanged,but as something continuously achieved.
III - Coherence of Becoming
This raises the central question more sharply:
What enables this coherence to hold?
Why do relational patterns not simply dissolve into randomness?
Why does the universe exhibit continuity rather than fragmentation?
The answer cannot lie in isolated events themselves, for each event is momentary. Nor can it lie in a static underlying substance, for such a notion fails to account for the dynamism of becoming.
Instead, persistence must be grounded in the ongoing relational conditions that connect successive moments. There must be a way in which:
- the past remains effective in the present
- relations are carried forward
- patterns are stabilized across time
This suggests that becoming is not unconstrained, but guided - structured by conditions that both limit and enable what can arise. This is what is meant in embodied process realism's expanded structure: constraint with orientation ( ~ directional selection)
In this sense:
continuity is not merely temporal - it is relational.
And persistence is not simply duration, but:
the sustained coherence of relational patterns across successive acts of becoming.
It is at this point that the notion of constraint as continuity becomes essential.
For if persistence depends upon the structured inheritance of prior relations, then there must be a principle - expressed within the fabric of reality itself - through which such continuity is maintained.
This suggests that continuity is not an incidental feature of reality, but constitutive of reality.
Reality does not first exist and then persist. Rather, reality exists as persistence - as the ongoing achievement of relational coherence across successive moments of becoming.
In this sense, "to be," or "to become," is not merely "to occur," but "to continue" - "to participate in a pattern that holds across time."
Persistence, therefore, is not an added property of reality. It is reality's mode of existence.
This brings us to the next step in the argument by illustrating these principles using science:
Let us reinterpret gravity, not as an external force or spacetime geometry,
but as a condition of continuity within becoming.
III. Constraint and the Structure of Continuity
The universe persists in the continuity of its relations across time.
As persistence names the problem; and, the continuity of becoming names the ontology; then gravity names how the universe endures across time.
- R.E. Slater
I - What is Contraint?
If persistence is the mode of existence, and continuity its condition, then the question becomes more precise:
What is the nature of the structure that allows continuity to hold?
From the preceding analysis, one conclusion follows:
Continuity is not passive - it is structured.
It does not arise from mere repetition, nor from the inert endurance of substance. Rather, it is maintained through the ongoing organization of relational conditions across successive moments of becoming.
This organization is what we have called constraint with orientation.
Constraint, in this sense, is not limitation imposed from outside.
Rather, constraint is the internal condition of coherence - that by which becoming remains connected to itself.
Each moment does not arise freely from an infinite field of possibilities. It arises within a structured horizon:
- shaped by what has been
- oriented toward what may become
- bounded by relational conditions that both limit and enable its formation
Thus, constraint is not opposed to creativity. It is the condition under which creativity becomes coherent.
Without constraint:
- relations would not persist
- patterns would not stabilize
- continuity would not hold
Becoming would dissolve into fragmentation.
With constraint:
- the past remains effective in the present
- relational structures are carried forward
- patterns achieve continuity across time
We may therefore restate the earlier claim in more precise terms:
Constraint is the structural form of continuity.
II - What is the Nature of Causation?
This reframes the nature of causation.
Causation is not best understood as the transmission of force between independent objects, but as the inheritance and re-expression of relational structure across events.
The past does not push the present from behind. Rather, it is taken up into the present as a condition of its becoming.
At the same time, becoming is not merely determined by the past. It is oriented toward possibility- selective, directed, and open within constraint.
Thus, each moment stands at the intersection of:
- inheritance (past)
- constraint with orientation (future selection)
- integration (present unity)
The triadic structure introduced earlier now reveals its deeper significance:
it is not merely descriptive, but constitutive of how continuity is achieved.
This suggests that reality is not composed of isolated events, but of relationally structured processes in which continuity is maintained through constraint.
III - Integration of Philosophy to Science and Vice-Versa
At this point, the philosophical account begins to converge with the language of physics.
For in modern scientific understanding, the persistence of structure across time is not explained solely by local interactions, but by fields of relation - extended structures that condition the behavior of systems within them.
Among these, one stands out as our exemplar supreme: gravity.
Gravity is not merely one interaction among others. It is the condition under which:
- trajectories remain continuous
- relations extend across time
- structure is maintained across scales
We may therefore begin to reinterpret gravity - not yet fully, but in outline - as:
the expression of constraint within the continuity of becoming.
This prepares the next step.
For if gravity expresses constraint, and constraint sustains continuity, then gravity may be understood as the structural condition under which persistence becomes possible.
Gravity is the universe holding itself together across time.
Within modern physics, gravity is most precisely described not as a force, but as the curvature of spacetime. Mass and energy shape the geometry of the universe, and this geometry, in turn, guides the motion of bodies.
This account has extraordinary explanatory power. It reveals that motion is not imposed externally, but arises from the structure of spacetime itself.
Yet even this profound insight remains, in one sense, incomplete.
It describes how structure behaves, but not what structure is in its ontological depth.
For if reality is not composed of static objects but of events - if reality exists as a continuous process of becoming - then spacetime itself must be understood not as a fixed background, but as an expression of relational continuity.
In this light, gravity may be reinterpreted.
Gravity is not merely curvature. It is the persistence of relational structure across becoming.
It is the way in which:
- prior conditions remain effective
- relations extend across time
- trajectories achieve continuity
Thus, gravity is not something acting upon reality from without. It is the manner in which reality remains connected to itself.
We may now state the central claim more precisely:
Gravity is the structural expression of continuity within becoming.
Or, more simply:
Gravity is the universe holding itself together across time.
This does not negate the scientific account. It deepens it.
Where physics describes gravity as geometry, a process ontology interprets that geometry as the visible form of an underlying continuity - a continuity grounded in the persistence of relational patterns across successive moments.
In this sense:
- spacetime curvature expresses relational constraint
- gravitational trajectories express continuity of becoming
- mass-energy distributions reflect stabilized patterns of persistence
Gravity, then, is not an additional feature of the universe. It is the condition under which:
- continuity is maintained
- structure persists
- becoming does not fragment
Without gravity, there would be no sustained trajectories, no stable structures, no coherent universe.
Thus, gravity may be understood as:
What holds the universe together"The condition of continuity through which persistence becomes possible."
is not force, but continuity --
V. Gravity and the Persistence of Structure
What persists does so not in isolation,but through relations that extend across the whole.
If gravity is the expression of continuity within becoming, then its significance extends beyond local interactions. It must be understood as operating across the full range of scales through which structure is maintained.
Continuity is not merely a feature of individual events. It is a distributed condition, one that connects-and-integrates local occurrences into broader relational fields.
A single event does not persist by itself. It persists through its participation in a network of relations that extend beyond it:
- across neighboring events
- across systems
- across scales of organization
This suggests that persistence is not localized, but field-like.
The continuity of becoming is not confined to discrete points in time and space. It is sustained through extended relational structures that bind events together into coherent patterns.
Gravity, in this context, takes on a broader significance.
It is not simply the curvature of spacetime at a point, but the global condition under which relational continuity is maintained across the universe.
Thus:
- local stability depends upon global structure
- individual trajectories depend upon extended fields
- persistence at any scale depends upon continuity across scales
This aligns with the deeper insight that reality is not composed of independent units, but of interdependent processes.
Within Embodied Process Realism, this may be expressed as follows:
Reality is the persistence of relational coherence across becoming (EPR).
Gravity, then, is the structural condition through which this coherence is maintained across scales.
It binds-and-integrates:
- the local into the global
- the momentary into the enduring
- the particular into the universal
In doing so, it reveals that persistence is not a property of isolated entities, but a function of relational participation.
To persist is not simply to remain. It is to remain in relation.
This reframes the nature of structure itself.
The ontological structure of reality and the cosmos is not a static arrangement of parts. It is the ongoing coherence of relations (EPR) - a pattern sustained (persistence) through continuity across time and scale.
Gravity expresses this coherence.
It is the way in which:
- relations remain connected
- structures remain stable
- the universe maintains its integrity across its own unfolding
Thus, we may extend the earlier claim:
Gravity is not only the continuity of becoming,but the continuity of becoming across scale.
And philosophically,
Persistence, therefore, is not merely the continuation of what has been,
but the ongoing integration of relations into coherent form.
This prepares the final step in the argument.
If gravity binds structure across scales, and continuity sustains persistence, then the question arises:
What is the nature of the coherence that underlies this continuity?
Coherence is when the past is inherited.The future is constrained with orientation.And the present is integrated into unity.
This, then, is the definition of reality.
The threefold movement through which reality becomes coherentis inheritance, constraint, and integration.
Where the past is received, the future is shaped, and the present becomes one -so reality becomes.
With the triadic structure of becoming now in view, we may now name what has been operating throughout:
coherence.
Coherence is not an added feature of reality. It is the condition under which reality is able to persist as itself.
If continuity describes the extension of relations across time -then coherence describes the holding together of those relations as a unified pattern.
It is coherence that allows:
- relations to remain intelligible
- structures to remain stable
- patterns to persist without fragmentation
Coherence, therefore, is the inner stability of continuity.
It is what allows the triadic structure of becoming to function as a unified process rather than as disconnected operations.
In this sense, coherence is not merely structural. It is ontological.
We may therefore state:
The real is that which coheres.
This reframes realism.
Reality is not best understood as a collection of independent objects, nor even as a set of processes considered in isolation -
Reality is the ongoing coherence of relational becoming.
Within Embodied Process Realism, this becomes the central claim:
Reality is the persistence of relational coherence through which becoming holds together across its own unfolding. And it is coherence that makes persistence possible.
It is what allows:
- inheritance to remain effective
- constraint to remain ordered
- integration to achieve unity
Thus, coherence is not separate from the triad. It is the successful operation of the triad.
- Where inheritance fails, coherence weakens.
- Where constraint collapses, coherence disperses.
- Where integration breaks down, coherence fragments.
Conversely, where these operate together:
- relations remain connected
- patterns stabilize
- reality persists
We may now see that gravity, introduced earlier as the structural expression of continuity, participates within a deeper framework.
As gravity sustains continuity across scale.So coherence sustains the intelligibility and unity of that continuity.
Thus:
- gravity maintains connection
- coherence maintains unity
Together, they describe not two separate features of reality, but two aspects of the same underlying condition:
the persistence of relational becoming.
This prepares the final movement of the essay.
If reality persists through coherence, and coherence arises through the structured integration of relations, then the question emerges:
What is the nature of the depth at which coherence is grounded?
VII. The Depth of Coherence
Reality holds together because it coheres;but coherence itself invites a deeper question.
If coherence names the condition under which reality persists - if it is that through which relations hold together as unified patterns - then a further question arises:
What is the depth at which coherence is grounded?
Up to this point, coherence has been described structurally:
- as the successful integration of relations
- as the condition of persistence
- as the unity through which becoming holds together
But coherence, as experienced, is not only structural. It is also felt.
Reality is not merely organized. It is present.
It is encountered not only from without, but from within.
Thus, coherence has two inseparable dimensions:
- a structural dimension, through which relations hold together across time and scale
- an intrinsic dimension, through which reality is present as experience, interiority, and felt unity
These two dimensions do not stand apart. They are expressions of a single process:
the ongoing coherence of becoming.
What holds together externally is, at depth, lived from within.
Reality is not only extended, but it is also inward.
Not only structured, but felt.
Throughout the universe, there is interiority.
It is, because reality has interiority.
The structural follows the ontological.
At this point, the argument approaches a threshold.
To therefore speak of coherence as both structural and intrinsic is to open toward a deeper interpretive horizon - one in which questions of value, meaning, and purpose begin to arise.
This horizon has traditionally been described in theological terms.
But within the present framework, it need not be imposed from without. It emerges from within the ontology of reality itself. It is why a theist may speak confidently that life has a purpose, a meaning, an interiority within it. And, if one is a non-theist, may speak as confidently to the generative value of life conscious beings sense, or feel, within their breasts.
If coherence is:
- participatory
- directional (though not deterministic)
- expressive of value
and if it is:
- felt
- generative
- arising from within the very structure of reality
then coherence may be understood as more than structure.
It may be understood as depth.
Not a separate layer added to reality, but the inward dimension of the same relational process through which reality persists.
This does not conclude the inquiry. It opens it up for our next essay...
For the questions that now arise -
- of value
- of meaning
- of identity
- of purpose
- belong to a further line of investigation.
They require a shift from ontology to lived participation.
From structure to experience.
From persistence to significance.
These questions will be taken up - but here, it is enough to have shown that:
- reality persists through continuity
- continuity is structured through constraint
- constraint is expressed through gravity
- gravity operates across scales of relation
- and all of this is sustained through coherence
Thus, we may conclude:
Reality is not a static order of things,but the ongoing coherence through whichbecoming holds together across its own unfolding.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barbour, Ian G. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997.
Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. New York: Dutton, 2016.
Chalmers, David J. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Clayton, Philip. Adventures in the Spirit: God, World, Divine Action. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.
Greene, Brian. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. New York: Vintage Books, 2005.
Griffin, David Ray. Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
James, William. Essays in Radical Empiricism. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912.
Kauffman, Stuart A. Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion. New York: Basic Books, 2008.
Penrose, Roger. The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. New York: Vintage Books, 2005.
Rescher, Nicholas. Process Philosophy: A Survey of Basic Issues. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000.
Russell, Bertrand. The Analysis of Matter. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1927.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Corrected Edition. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Free Press, 1978.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the Modern World. New York: Free Press, 1967.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Adventures of Ideas. New York: Free Press, 1967.
