If information is relational, consider an electron bound to a proton: their interaction only requires a stable energy level, it does not require position. But when a photon hits the electron, the nature of the collision forces a new question. In that instant, a localized fact about position is defined relative to that interaction, built on top of, not canceling, the underlying atomic relationship that shaped the very possibility of where the photon landed. Information exists only within that specific system—meaning a fact can be perfectly real for those involved, while remaining entirely unformed to the rest of the universe.

As a thought experiment, Person A is sitting in a room. Is their position factual for you outside the room? In this relational framework, their presence in that room is not a fact in relation to you. You will only discover them if you open the door and interact; then you will always find them in the room.

On Earth, however, history accumulates, reality builds rather than remaining purely perspectival. This thought experiment would only be actual if the room was in another galaxy or possibly further in a completely isolated system. Here on Earth, for example, the interactions between objects are constant. We are immersed in a thick soup of air molecules, gravitational fields, and thermal vibrations and the causal history that produced all those objects is thick and interconnected, making Earth a giant coherent system. Earth behaves like one shared reality because macroscopic systems are embedded within an extraordinarily dense and continuous web of interactions from which they can rarely become isolated. Reality on Earth is factual but only in a local and relational way.

If we think about the universal laws of physics not as external rules governing from the background, but as the patterns that emerge from how everything interacts with everything else, then the laws are simply the sum of all relational properties in the universe. We can visualize this as a possibility space. Think of it not as a physical place, but as a vast geometric topography of potential. This space does two things at once: it dictates the laws of physics by mapping out what is allowed to happen, and it holds future possibilities by mapping out which events are most likely to occur. Before an electron ever interacts with a proton, the geometric blueprint of their potential interaction already exists as a valley of least resistance in this virtual landscape.

The laws of physics are not a separate, external stage—they are simply the architectural boundaries of our possibilities. But they’re also not a fixed framework on which the universe runs. They bootstrap themselves into existence through the very interactions they govern, habits that stabilized early and became self-reinforcing. The interactions carved grooves, and those grooves now shape the interactions back. A closed, co-emerging tension between two ontological vectors. From behind, the present is pushed by the dense, accumulated history of thirteen billion years of crystallized facts and localized relationships. Simultaneously, from ahead, it is guided by a possibility space. The future is not a flat field of possibilities; it is a highly structured landscape of potentiality containing deep, pre-weighted basins and attractors. The universe does not simply march into an unformed future; it is drawn toward these basins like water finding a valley. The interactions create the rules, but the rules dictate the interactions. The laws are the deepest attractors in possibility space.

*

Non-uniform possibility space

Through evolution, certain shapes and forms keep being discovered. An organism needing to navigate 3D space develops light receptors that gradually get more complex. Research tells us that eyes are structures that organisms on earth discovered 40 to 60 separate times across completely different lineages; they are deep basins in possibility space.

In evolutionary biology, there is the idea of a Morphspace; the space of all possible biological forms which is used to map which regions of possible biological forms get occupied. This is treated usually as a passive, abstract mathematical graph, a chart of all the shapes that could theoretically exist, where some spots just happen to be evolutionary winners.

It is explained by fitness, but fitness can explain the selection of the forms once reached; it doesn’t explain why those specific forms keep being reached independently from completely different starting points. Convergent evolution of eyes, bilateral symmetry, and similar metabolic patterns suggest something about the structure of space.

Morphospace is not a passive math chart of what has been, it’s a directional topography, a special case of non-uniform possibility space whose deeper basins exert real weight on what comes next. Evolutionary fitness in this case is a local pattern that emerges from this fundamental topography. The non-uniformity is also historical—certain basins only become reachable once enough assembly history has accumulated to make them accessible.

Similarly, the space of possible futures may not be uniform. Certain futures occupy deeper basins, they are vastly more likely to be reached from the present configuration than others. This is compatible with existing accounts of time’s arrow but adds something: the suggestion that this is structural rather than merely probabilistic. The universe doesn’t get pushed toward certain futures by initial conditions alone—the landscape of possibility is itself shaped such that certain directions are like valleys. Things fall toward them the way water finds the sea. Things just follow the least resistant straight line. It is not determined, not random—structured.

Morphspace of shell shapes. The 3D space maps all theoretical shell shape geometries; Notice that most of the space is unreachable.

Probability distribution of an electron around its nucleus: the density of points represents the likelihood of finding the particle at that location in a measurement. This is what is depicted in orbital diagrams. The atom has no boundary; only a topology of probability that resolves differently depending on what it interacts with. In principle, the whole universe can be a reference point. We use the nucleus as a reference point because it is the dominant relational reference point located at the center.

In quantum mechanics, a wave function is the foundational description of a particle’s state. Before a measurement, the electron is in a state of superposition; it inhabits multiple possible states simultaneously, undetermined until an interaction resolves them. When we want to calculate its distribution pattern, where statistically it would be found, we are looking at the orbital, a region of space around an atomic nucleus where an electron is most likely to be found. Interpretations of the data vary, but the claim here is that the state of superposition is real yet virtual, it occupies many states but some are more likely than others—a structured possibility space where things are real yet virtual and not yet actualized. The orbital rendered above in 3D provides an illustration of how this possibility space works, a particle position that is not yet manifested but exists virtually in our universe as a pure possibility.

Notice that, as a physical limitation, when we calculate the distribution pattern of a particle, the calculation cannot be verified simultaneously with a measurement. To check the calculation, an interaction must occur. This means that the calculated distribution pattern can never be confirmed as a description of a current state of the system—it only ever predicts the boundary conditions of the next relational interaction. By the time we check it, we have already moved to the next step in sequence. The 3D orbital model is therefore not a snapshot of what is, but a structural map of what is about to be made reachable.

The future location of this particle is always in relation to another system and it both arises from the current state of the system and from the statistical future—a co-emergence. The shape of these 3D orbital models is not a snapshot of what is, but a map of future possibility.

Because there is no master cosmic clock ticking in the background, time is generated locally by interactions. If we imagine a shape growing in vacuum, when this shape grows, its expanding form is carving out a pathway through a non-uniform possibility space. The “shape” of that space is determined by the laws of physics, which dictate what states are possible next.

This accumulation of interactions is time, it is not a constant background or a state of disorder. Things don’t just happen in time; they are shaped, guided, and assembled by the intrinsic topology of history and the shape of possibility space itself.

*

In quantum mechanics, if we want to know the probability of finding a particle at a future time, we don’t calculate its trajectory step by step. Instead, we use a mathematical tool.

This tool does something radical: it takes only two pieces of information: 1. The starting point (Where and when you first checked the particle) 2. The endpoint (Where and when you want to check it two or three observations from now). It seems to completely ignore the concept of “intervening steps.” The math allows you to plug in a time that is 10 years into the future, and it will instantly give you the distribution pattern for that exact moment, without ever computing the billions of seconds in between.

Mathematically, we are jumping straight across the possibility space. We are calculating the total change of the landscape over a large leap of time, completely bypassing the need to explicitly simulate each intermediate instant. This suggests a probabilistically structured future: if you do not look at Check 1 and Check 2, you can leap straight to Check 3.

But: if you do look at Check 1, you change the setup and are no longer evolving the same initial relational configuration. The moment you measure the particle at Check 1, you force a relational interaction. You change the possibilities of the two systems. The only way to skip the middle steps and leap into the future is if a system is effectively isolated or has zero outside relationships.

The universe is not moving through time. It is a shape, and time is what that shape looks like from inside it. Behind: vast, dense, already decided, thirteen billion years of accumulated relations, crystallized into fact. Every particle that ever interacted left a trace.

At the leading edge, something different. Not solid—virtual. The future is thin, a layer of the next configurations, some stretching longer by having fewer relations, some shorter and already anchored by current relations. It is thin, but it spreads laterally into possibility. Not different timelines branching away from each other to other universes, but different weighted states occupying the same edge simultaneously, virtually.

The future doesn’t extend forward like a corridor. It grows outward—many possible states coexisting, each with its own weight, its own depth of basin. It is not a single topography, it is many independent dimensions of constraint overlaid simultaneously; the deepest basins are where independent topographies valley together.

This is what the orbital is mapping. Not where the electron is. Not even exactly where it will be. But the shape of that glowing edge—the weighted virtual surface of what comes next. Already structured. Already non-uniform. Already biased toward certain forms more than others. Shaped by the growth of the object. Funneled by the architecture of what comes next.

The result is that what we call ¨solid reality”—the tables, the chairs, the stars, our own bodies, is not the primary, fundamental “stuff” of the universe. Earth, for instance, is a massive, locally synchronized system of crossing paths that have left a dense trail of historical facts behind. Matter is forced to march through this landscape step-by-step because the paths keep colliding, creating relationships, and restructuring the trajectory. Reality is the side effect, the sum of all of those particles crossing and interacting with each other, solidified traces of an event.

*

Aliens and the Fundamental Laws

Assembly theory starts from an observation: complex objects cannot appear randomly. They require a causal history. Every complex thing is the product of a sequence of steps, each one building on the last, each one physically necessary for the next to be possible. The assembly index of an object is the minimum number of steps required to build it from scratch. A brain cannot appear in a vacuum. A vacuum cleaner cannot appear without the entire causal history of human civilization behind it. The universe cannot explore its own combinatorial space randomly or exhaustively. What actually exists is a tiny subset of what is combinatorially possible, selected through historical pathways, each step constraining and enabling the next.

The universe cannot fit all its own possibilities. As atoms bond together to form complex things (like molecules, proteins, or technology), the number of possible combinations grows hyper-exponentially. For example, if you want to build a molecule like ATP (the primary energy-carrying molecule used by all living cells), the number of ways those same atoms could be randomly arranged is astronomical. Because the universe literally doesn’t have enough room or time to try every random combination, this massive combinatorial space is radically pruned.

*

Let’s go back to the thought experiment about our friend in the room in a different galaxy: you do not have a definite state relative to them. It is not only that they are sitting in the room secretly and you just don’t know it. It means that, relative to your system, the physical variables of their existence are literally undetermined. If we swap our friend for an entire alien civilization, even if both civilizations have the means to communicate, until an interaction is established, they remain undetermined for us and we for them. The gap in order to establish communication is not just epistemological but ontological.

Since reality is relational, for two entirely disconnected systems to interact, they have to share a relational framework. But because they are separated by vast cosmic distances, each remains confined to its own local circle of possibility. Until a particle that has interacted with their planet reaches our sensors on Earth, our relational bubbles have not yet come into contact. The space between us isn’t just empty distance; it is a total void of reality.

The paradox: How do two separate clouds of possibility become mutually actualized? They can’t, until a signal bridges the gap. But to send that signal, they have to shoot it into a blind void, hoping a relation can be established on the other side. Even if we see their planet with our telescopes, it does not mean that the whole system (biome, culture, etc) will be factual for us, only the parts that are in interaction with us such as remote sensing data and radiant information. This is a threshold where contact itself depends on the first emergence of interaction.

We assume detection would be the difficult part but even if a signal arrives intact, its status as “communication” depends on the assembly history of the receiving system. A civilization built around infrared duration-coding may not resolve a radio transmission carrying human language into a stable structure, not because the physics differs, but because the historical scaffolding required to compress that signal into meaningful correlations does not exist in their system.

Even on Earth, recognizability depends on shared assembly history: we can easily detect communication between systems that share evolutionary and sensory constraints, but as we move further away—mammals, birds, insects, fungi, bacteria, algae, plants, the structure of interpretation becomes progressively less transparent. What we call “communication” is therefore not a property of the signal alone, but a stable relation between two assembled systems with partially overlapping histories of constraint formation.

A civilization embedded in radically different physical regimes, such as the vicinity of a neutron star or black hole, would develop different dominant abstractions of regularity. Their mathematics would reflect a different sampling of environmental constraints, leading to different compressions of physical structure into symbolic form.

Language can likewise be understood as a relational structure: a network of constraints between units that themselves carry assembly histories. It is not primarily symbolic labeling, but a compressed geometry of relations. From the outside, signals that are highly structured within one relational system may appear indistinguishable from noise within another.

*

A complex object cannot just appear out of nowhere by pure random chance. When it has a high assembly index, it means that it requires a specific, historical sequence of steps—a path of previous choices, to be built. If objects are accumulated traces of interactions, then assembly can be viewed not only as the construction of objects, but the network of interactions that those objects participate in.

Like casting plaster between a set of objects reveals the geometry of the space between them, a relational event is not reducible to its components. The event has a minimum set of historical constraints required for it to occur, distinct from the sum of its parts. Events have structure, not just participants. They are configurations of constraints carved out of possibility space. They are relational geometry made actual.

If we think about assembly theory as a way of describing not only objects but the relational histories that produce them, then this photon we detect through our telescope now opens a possibility space that includes an encounter.

This implies that after this initial connection, certain steps need to happen. The relational system needs to be extended. Certain possibilities need to happen in certain combinations for us to encounter the aliens. This interaction event is located in the future of possibility space; these aliens aren’t only traveling through physical “space” to get to us. They are traveling through time and probability. They are navigating the assembly tree.

The moment that particle reaches our sensors, the interaction has already happened. It doesn’t matter if they “know” we saw it; both sides of the universe have been physically altered by that single particle. The relational state of the two systems has changed.

The more data we collect through observation, the more we are accumulating correlations. Both systems are assembling a shared causal pathway in order to construct the exact sequence of historical events required to create an encounter. Under this framing, when the aliens finally land on Earth, it isn’t just a physical arrival. It is the culmination of a bridging process. The two civilizations have participated in building a shared historical pathway, link by link, interaction by interaction, until the meeting event finally breaks out of the future and solidifies into actuality.

*

One suggestive extension of this relational, assembly-based picture of time reaches toward cosmological scales. If time is fundamentally the accumulation of relationships and change, then relational accumulation may take two outlets, depending on constraint. Where nothing binds a system, it expresses change through expansion—through drifting apart. Where gravity binds a system together, drift is foreclosed; the same accumulation must express itself differently, through interaction, through the building of internal history. Not a unified force, but perhaps one ontological symmetry: the same tendency toward continual change taking different routes depending on constraint. Change is not something that happens to the universe; it is the most fundamental fact of reality itself, across all scales of constraint.

*

Emergence of Non-Fungibility

In the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang, the universe was an unimaginably hot, dense soup of pure energy. Particles were constantly flashing into existence. At that cosmic moment, the particles in the universe were completely fungible. Every electron, for example, is an identical clone. No history, pure ontology. You could swap any electron in this plasma with any other, and nothing changes. At the bedrock, there is no history.

Notice that in QM, at the fundamental levels ontology and epistemology are one and the same, we do not have information about the location of a particle in superposition not only because it is epistemologically inaccessible, but because the specific location ontologically simply does not exist relative to us or to any other system that has not interacted with it.

Although Individual particles are completely fungible on the individual level, at some point relations arise; Atoms and molecules form, and later even more complex structures. These events start to solidify themselves, leaving residue, accumulating into unique geometry of matter. Individual particles remain identical and interchangeable in principle, but the relational configurations they form are not—you cannot remove a bound electron without disturbing the relation between the particles and other systems it is bound to.

Classical physics is not a separate regime, it is what quantum looks like once enough relational history has accumulated and objects have settled into their state relative to everything around them. The relations between all those particles are now inherently non-fungible; this is the beginning of causal history—the objects in our universe are just a tip of a monolithic structure in time and space.

Objects are in principle boundless; they are whatever their causal influence reaches. Listening to a recording for instance is not listening to a representation; The vocal cords make a sound; it vibrates in relation to the surrounding air molecules; it is leaving physical traces on tape; these stretch through time and space, resonating with other objects. The musician who made the sound is just temporarily the densest, the most locally concentrated part of a much larger causal structure, the strongest referential point of the object. Every novel molecular combination humans create or even casually change their trajectory; throwing something in the bin, combining materials that would never interact without us, unintentionally, chemicals combined in configurations that have no causal precedent, extends forward into futures we have no model for. We have no idea where our boundaries are.

But even at the level of particles, something else has happened; the universe now has a record that is different from the event. the structure itself now carries information about its own history. this is the epistemological split: between what is happening and what is registered. It is about knowing, but it does not need a knower.

On the fundamental level, the elements are not aware of an attraction, and they do not yet ‘feel’ attraction, they are attraction. Consciousness is a gradient—it scales with integration, traceable all the way down to where the epistemological split first opens, there is no clean threshold going all the way down.

The more integrated a system becomes, the more it’s running a model of the world rather than acting directly on it. Power over the world increases—lag increases with it.

At the human level, we are so complex and our sensory information so highly integrated, that we’re essentially running a model of the world’s residue. The decision happens in our brain, then we claim it. The sensation arises, then we notice it. The narrating self is always reading the traces and explaining the past. And that gap between the event and the model is where consciousness lives. It’s not a bug. It’s the structural consequence of being a modeling system sophisticated enough to have an inside view that is distinct from the outside.

The hard problem feels hard precisely because we’re asking the question from inside the gap. Consciousness doesn’t impose its will because it is too late.

*

The hard problem of mass

“If a stone in motion possessed consciousness, it would falsely believe it was moving of its own free will, simply because it was conscious of its own momentum but unaware of the external causes pushing it”-Spinoza.

Consciousness is not an emerging property but a gradient. It isn’t a new ingredient that gets added at some threshold; it is the same basic activity: being-in-relation all the way down. It is relation, recursively folded: being, then being-with-history, then being-with-history that models itself. The electron interacts; the molecule preserves traces of interactions; The assembled object contains a history; The brain contains models of histories. Conscious experience is what it feels like when a sufficiently integrated system operates on those models.

To understand why our consciousness feels like a continuous, rich, vivid “inner world” while a rock remains completely in the dark, we have to look at how a system handles its signals. Consciousness isn’t a magical spark, but a direct result of how a system is physically wired. A conscious system, like the human brain, works in the exact opposite way from a rock. It is built out of a hyper-dense web of loops where every single part is constantly interacting with, reacting to, and shaping every other part simultaneously. Because of this intense, recursive feedback, the system cannot be broken down into separate pieces without destroying the whole thing.

An electron has no integration; it experiences a fleeting, binary flash of physical orientation only when it interacts with another particle. The atoms in a rock sit next to each other, but they do not communicate in loops. There are no sensors, the information does not flow, and it never integrates. Humans, however, are hyper-dense integration engines. We do not experience the universe as isolated data points. We take completely separate streams of highly complex sensory data; sight, touch, sound, and memory, force them through millions of looping neural pathways all at the same time, binding them into a single, unbreakable unit—a unified render.

*

Some contemplative traditions have placed the direct observation of consciousness at the center of their practice and have developed systematic methods for examining the structure of experience itself.

In traditions of Theravada meditation, the goal is to train the mind first for deep focus and then to directly observe whatever arises: feelings, body sensations, pain, emotions, thoughts, memories, without judgment, to observe without claiming them to be one’s own. To note them for what they are: arising unwilled phenomena. By directly observing the mind, it is apparent that thoughts, emotions, and sensations do not exist as solid, permanent fixtures; they simply arise, stay for some time, and fall away. They emerge, rather than being authored. If consciousness is not in charge of our will, what is its actual function?

I would suggest that the only real capability our consciousness seems to possess, the only free will, is the ability to focus attention. The arising and falling of mental objects is the mind shifting between different paths, different roads. Every time a new thought or sensation arises, it isn’t just an abstract mental image. It represents a branching point that the mind and subsequently the body might follow. By placing our focus on that specific arising phenomenon, we are weighting certain paths in the possibility space. But to say “we focus attention” introduces a paradox, because it implies an agent; a driver inside the machine. But in a recursive system, the spotlight and the terrain are the same thing. By not following the pathways reflexively, the mechanism works more as an inhibitor or diverter rather than an active agent, and the system naturally rolls down a different valley. This act of focusing attention is what allows the system to carve out entirely new pathways, ignoring certain ones and creating new places for future actions, and opening up brand-new relations to explore. Consciousness doesn’t forcefully “drive” the machine of the brain; it acts as a spotlight that alters the terrain, changing which valleys the system will roll down next.

*

Looking at the red carpet in my room is an interaction between three systems: the photons, the carpet, me. The redness of red is not in the carpet. It is not in the photon. It is what my specific integration engine renders a particular relational fact as, after passing it through multiple remediations—wavelength into chemical signal, chemical signal into nerve impulse, nerve impulse into integrated model, and that model is not a simple object receiving the signal. It is itself an already integrated system, carrying the residue of millions of prior relations, looping back on itself many times before redness ever appears. The relational fact was always there. The possibility of redness was always held in that interaction. But redness itself—vivid, specific, irreducible—appears only in the model. A different architecture renders the same wavelength differently because it carries different history. The rendering is shaped by the tools. The tools evolved. But they’re rendering a relation that was always already there. It just expresses the same underlying rule through a new medium at a new resolution. The question “why red” assumes there’s something that needs explaining, but it’s not mysterious. It’s just what that system does with that input. Redness is one possible expression of that interaction.

The macroscopic system does not swallow or dissolve the lower-level components; the electron inside the brain does not combine; rather, a new larger-scale system has emerged. There is no agent inside watching this model, and the model isn’t looking back at itself, rather, the integrated model and the perspective are the exact same thing. The vivid redness isn’t a picture being looked at; it is the shape of the system’s interaction with that photon wavelength. The hard problem requires a gap—for the electron, existence is too immediate and unmediated to be a mystery. The hard problem feels hard only because we are standing inside the model, slightly lagging, and finding it strange. The strangeness is not a feature of reality. It is a feature of the gap. The hard problem is not a problem of consciousness. It is what consciousness feels like when it looks at itself from inside the gap. If you had no gap—if you were the electron, pure present relation, no model, no lag—there would be no hard problem. Not because consciousness wouldn’t exist, but because there wouldn’t be a standpoint slightly behind it to find it mysterious.

*

This mechanism of layered modeling and residue explains why human consciousness feels the way it does. But from the electron’s perspective—not a thought or a feeling, but simply the bare fact of being its interactions, its attractions, and its mass—that would constitute the entirety of its existence. It would not be a hard problem that it could articulate, but it occupies the same structural position: the one undeniable fact of existence. The point is that every node of this fractal, at every scale, occupies the same position relative to its own being. It is the one thing that is not a model, not mediated, but simply is. Consciousness feels special to us because of our perspective, and that feeling of specialness is itself a relational artifact. Every scale of this fractal is, for itself, the whole of what is, with nothing outside from which to view it.

*

Interobjective relations

In Aesthetics, a response is either objective, subjective or intersubjective. Meaning a property is either inherently factual about the object / exists purely in the experience of the self or exists as a convention on the group level. But I want to suggest interobjectivity as a fourth category that lives below all three: If reality is fundamentally relational, if what exists is not objects with fixed properties but the sum of interactions between systems, and if the space of possible relational configurations is genuinely non-uniform; if certain forms and relations occupy deeper basins than others, then aesthetic response might be one way that perceptual systems detect this topology from within. Organisms recognize a shared, real truth about the geometric and relational laws that govern physical matter. It is the recognition of a universal relational structure between objects (for example: the human perceptual apparatus and another physical system). And the other categories; objective, subjective or intersubjective, are still useful but they are local, accurate descriptions at the scale they operate on.

Interobjectivity is about what is reachable at all from current configuration, which basins structurally exists, and what futures are possible given the present assembly state. And what is resonance: what has enough structural depth to actually pull—to produce a reaction in a sufficiently assembled system. Not what is good. Judgment remains the work of the other three categories.

Some evidence of that is that certain mathematical structures feel compelling across cultures and contexts. Certain forms and ratios recur in what humans find beautiful and these tend to overlap significantly with forms that appear independently across unrelated physical and biological systems. Flowers, for instance, appeal to us across biological boundaries; we find them beautiful because both systems; our brains and petals, are bound by the exact same universal laws of physics, the human brain (which was sculpted by navigating this space) recognizes these “deep basins” when it interacts with them.

More than a recognition, our brains are literally made of these attractors in the way they were formed. When we encounter them in the outside world, it is an encounter between two highly assembled systems that share the same historical lineage of structural optimization. The “attraction” is the physical alignment of two deeply assembled pieces of the universe.

Mathematics is fundamentally relational. Rather than just a collection of rigid rules or isolated facts, it is a system of connections. Since mathematics is not platonic, a new equation is not discovered in some independent realm but is a discovery of real relations in the universe, even prior to its application. Mathematical structures emerge when we observe how numbers, shapes, and variables interact with and map onto one another. Since the laws of physics themselves are the sum of all relational properties in the universe, then mathematics and the relational structures of the universe are in some sense, the same thing viewed from different angles. Research suggests that aesthetically pleasing mathematical expressions engage similar neural systems as those involved in art and music. Although this explains why elegant mathematics can feel resonant, it says nothing about whether an elegant theory is therefore true.

Physics—chemistry—biology—culture is one continuous folding assembly with no point where it stops being material and becomes merely conventional. Culture is matter at a higher assembly index. Interobjectivity isn’t restricted to ‘natural’ forms such as spirals, it extend all the way up to art history because there is no seam where matter stops and convention begins. As the historical-cultural strata develops, abstract patterns and relations are recognized. They self refer and build on top of objects that already have a deep assembly index. It suggests that aesthetic response tracks something real in the structure of possibility space. Art, as a generative-creative practice, is the open, at times uncontextualized exploration of possibility space. It is not merely a subjective exploration, but a recognition of existing or emergent forms and structures.

In this sense, Michelangelo’s statement; “The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material.” Should be understood as it is—The possibility of this particular David exist already in the chunk of marble not as a platonic form but as a reachable possibility—one that emerges initially at the intersection of the artist and the stone, rooted in imagination that is itself a physical system mapping out a very real shared basin.

Our aesthetic response to David is not only to the human proportions or the appreciation within art history and artistic traditions, these do sit on top as a subjective and intersubjective layer. It is to the deeper level: certain ratios, symmetries, rhythms, Dynamics, recursive structures (golden ratio, bilateral symmetry) that we respond to. Furthermore, the sheer reach and persistence of Michelangelo’s David has transformed it into a self propagating object in the world, an object that curved a path, accumulated relational density, and is expanding its boundaries through history.

But if David demonstrates the deep resonance of structural depth, a different kind of basin opens with Munch and Van Gogh’s departure from depicting the objective world to externalizing deep psychological and emotional states and give rise to the modern subject, they are exploring, finding and and actualizing a basin, a new state that has just become reachable. Not eternal or pre-existing in a platonic sense but newly opened by the co-emergence of everything else in modern world; industrialization, the emergence of the individual, and modern anxiety. It isn’t a separate exploration of the possibility space but is a part of a co-emergence with history, history of ideas and the rest of the system.

We focus on David and Michelangelo because we are systems that shares deep causal history with these particular objects. We privilege them because the patterns in them are the patterns our own structures share or were shaped by.

But of course, there’s nothing special about Michelangelo, the marble or the sculpture. They have no privilege over the absent air molecules it will displace, the pedestal, the pigeons, the room or the people who’ll gather in front. The basin of this non-uniform possibility space belongs to the entire configuration. All of it, ¨the deep basin¨ isn’t a basin for the sculpture—it is a basin in possibility space of the whole interconnected system. It is all moving constantly, growing into the future and already generating the next step.

*