Does Object-Oriented Ontology + Ontic Structural Realism = Spatial Realism?

What is at the bottom?

In many ways I guess I am a bit of a Structural Realist. I believe that structures - some seen, some unseen - underpin the fundamental girdles of reality. But, I suppose if I really boil it down, it is the structure of “space” that I am truly interested in. But Spatial Realist… is that even a thing? 

A good place to start is, well, why space? Everything we observe around us, everything we interact with, everything we participate in, involves one of two things: space or objects. Because objects assemble themselves, or are assembled by some external force, in space, I consider space upstream of objects. Following this line of reasoning, the structure of said space directly influences the evolution of said object in some spatial version of “form follows function”. Form is space, and function is objects. And with form attributed to shape, dimensions, and general morphology, I guess that has led us back to structure before objects. So I suppose “Spatial Realist” is an acceptable term to describe a belief that the structure of space is more fundamental to reality than anything else.

I should probably next define what I mean by space. I am referring to space in the same sense that Ontic Structural Realists refer to structure: the relationship and patterns between various entities. Because typically, in classical physics, space is a framework from which objects exist within, entities can be synonymous with objects. Relational structures, the Ontic Structural Realists say, are necessary for said objects to exist. Thus they argue structure is more “real” than the objects which emerge from it. If we take both entities and objects as a reference to different points in space, we arrive at someone interesting. Einstein - he may well have seen structure as the fabric of space-time. 

Perhaps that is how he imagined gravity as the shape of the various infinitesimal points of space-time (or the shape of the structure of space). Concluding, as he did, gravity is not a force, it is the shape of space. Space-time curves around large objects, like our Sun, and other smaller objects, like Earth, are pulled towards the larger object, following the curvature of space-time which has subsequently morphed around the larger massed object. Hence our annual orbit around our Sun. Reframed, our orbit is an example of how objects follow structure; the preexisting points of spatial structure curve around an object, and another object simply follows the geometry. Objects follow space because there needs to first be the space for an object to follow. In the sense of Spatial Realism (but of course, not in all senses), space and structure are synonymous. And, in another sense, space, structure and objects are like Borromean Rings - fundamentally linked.

Spatial Realism does not claim there is no room for any unknowingness at the bottom. Far from it. Spatial Realism embraces the eternal mystery, much like that present in the Vedic tradition, an essential ingredient for maintaining epistemic humility. We are not Laplace’s Demon - and neither, I suspect, should we want to be. Yet Spatial Realism, by suggesting at the base of it all is spatial structure, does not necessarily mean that we need to know it all. It does, in a sense, allow us to embrace the mystery. We cannot know spaces we cannot see, but we can still imagine them heuristically by first imagining they are there. We can imagine the objects that arise from those spaces, even if we cannot clearly observe them, or see them at all. Also, by imagining space at the bottom, it creates, well, space for further possibilities abound. By acknowledging blind spots, by giving a nod and a wink to the mystery, in a sense we are pointing to the structure of reality itself whilst remaining humble to its vastness. If we really are the unfolding of reality, how can we expect to see beyond the folds?

And, as it turns out, there is a very big “but” hiding somewhere in that space. Yes, the phrase “Spatial Realism” suggests that, like Ontic Structural Realism, all there is at the base ontological (ontic) level is structure. Structure is the most real thing around us. To understand an object, its existence, and how it came to be, we must look at the structure (thus the space!) it has developed within. But now consider the third part of the triple interconnection: space-structure-objects. Given the example of a star as an object so fundamental that it forces a change in the structure of space, causing other objects to follow the new spatial structure (gravity), or given the idea of a single cell being a one object out of 37 trillion more that can, if its boundary of self is diminished enough, bring down the entire biological structure, as is the case of cancer in of the human body, we begin to hear whispers. Those susurrations are saying one thing: do not neglect the importance of objects.  

Not blind to the dogmatic potential within Spatial Realism, I acknowledge it can limit our observational range, especially regarding the triple interconnection at its core. If we synonymise space and structure, one such limiting catch can be found in the In-Out Duality: difficulties arise when accurately depicting what is “inside” and what is “outside” a spatial structure. A duality like this may be summarised through the following thought experiment: 

In an imaginary world you have been born inside a box. Don’t worry - I have given you enough space as the average London apartment (so, actually - sorry). There is always a catch, and this one is no different. At least it is not hidden. All sides of the box are opaque; you cannot, and never have been able to, see outside your box. Having spent your entire life in that opaque box, your world view has been completely restricted to that which is inside your box. You might have come to assume that there is nothing outside your inside. How could you even begin to imagine anything different? Your inside has effectively become your outside. Then, one day you are going about your life inside your box and suddenly poooff! The sides become transparent. Rubbing your eyes in disbelief you now see your box is actually sitting within another bigger box. But, I did warn you, there is always a catch. Again this outer box has opaque sides. Now you come to realise a few things. First of all, the space between your box and the larger box becomes an outside to your inside. Your inside now has an outside. But second, your new outside has become an inside to the bigger box. Would you now conceive there is another outside, outside your new outside? Or would you stick with what you know - all that is observable from inside the bigger box? 

Objectively, when the structure you have been a part of your entire life has become an object within a larger structure, you can begin to see how, in the box within a box scenario, the outsides and insides of structure are inherently hard to distinguish, especially when you are unable to see everything. And us humans, as much as we like to think we can, certainly cannot see everything. 

Epistemic humility is needed. And I guess that is where Object-Oriented Ontology - the weighting of objects as very real ontological phenomena also at the base of everything - becomes something not to be ignored. We have seen how an object can become structure - like the Sun creating the structure of gravity to which we follow - just as a structure can become an object - like your box becoming an object inside another box. This line of reasoning has its place in the Sun. It suggests that inherent to Spatial Realism is not just spatial structure¹, but the objects that can both develop from and become structure. Spatial Realism is a handy framework to do a bit more nosing around, so let’s stick with it, with a nose to the ground for objects in spaces along the way. 

I once heard from a mathematician (for which I am certainly not) that “implication” contains two parts: truth (which the mathematicians can then use to explore logical reasoning and run off into the algebraic sunset with) and causation (for the philosophers to parse out, scratch their heads over and think about). When I heard this it resonated with what I had recently learned of David Bohm’s “Implicate Order”. Bohm suggested everything exists in a state of potentiality, where underlying implicate patterns hidden from observational lenses give rise to observable phenomena. On an ontological level, Bohm sees the implicate order - the base reality - hidden beneath the surface-level explicate order - observable reality. In a similar vein to Spatial Realism, the observable (explicate) reality becomes a manifestation of the underlying causal patterns (the structural relationship between points in space) from the unobservable (implicate) reality. From this hidden order, reality unfolds into observables we experience, interact with and participate within. So, as an observer, it seems I am creating space for myself from the perspective of a Spatial Realist. 

John Wheeler’s famous “U-diagram” set the notion of the universe as a “self-excited circuit”. Explaining this through the diagram above: space and thus structure gives rise to objects, and ultimately out of object creation, the observer/participant emerges. What separates the observer/participant from the object is the ability for the former to be able to make predictions about the space around them, based on observations, and through this, participate in reality. A strict object, whilst it may be able to affect reality (like the Sun changing the structure of our solar system), cannot make these agential choices. Whereas a rock is an object that is unable to experience agency and stays where it develops unless some external force moves it, a human can decide to get out of bed in the morning, travel to a job they have obtained, and come home to a family they choose to support. 

Through agential actions, the observer/participant creates space around them. Imagine a dark room where observations from the outside-in are difficult if not impossible. If light represents observation, the more you observe/shine, the more observational space in the room you create. Once you move into the room, and occupy that newly observed space, you can create more and more space, observing and participating in more and more the further into the room you (dare to) venture. Something else interesting arises: by observing more, you create meaning for your observations. At the start, from the outside looking in, not much meaning could be made. It is just a dark room. The options are both endless, and null. As you observe more and more, as you shine your light and peer further and further, you extrapolate more meaning from what you see. You connect this to what you already know. You can make educated predictions on what you may know in the future. You can begin to see the gaps in what you thought you knew. Meaning making is what contributes to our ability to (begin to get a) grasp on our place in the Universe. Meaning may act as the switch, closing the loop of Wheeler’s self-excited circuit. 

Carl Sagan once said something to the effect of “Life is the Universe trying to understand itself”. That, perhaps, appeared synchronistically with Wheeler’s idea. And that is, I hope, what can be read from between the lines of Spatial Realism. The structure of space: the structure of reality, gives rise to objects, and objects give rise to observers, which give rise to more observational space in the structure of reality. But the catch is the following: objects do exist, because we ourselves are an object (just one that has developed the ability to observe/participate in the space that we have developed within). Documented, unexplained phenomena like Heisenberg's “observer effect” in quantum physics, which spans multi-disciplinary areas (even including literary theory) suggests that objects that have developed the ability to observe can participate in shaping the structure of space by simply observing something. Just by observing a system, the idea states, the act of observation alone (without additional intervention) can change the behaviour of the observed system. If we take systems to be spatial structures, then we can imagine how an observer not only shapes their reality by creating observational space, but also shapes that space by simply observing it. 

A future experiment to ascertain the relationship between space-structure-objects and the observer effect within the context of Spatial Realism could revolve around a formicarium. The idea is this: ants, singular agents of the wider colony, work together to complete common goals within a given space. We know stigmergy amongst other communication techniques direct the group construction of the superstructure. But, the hypothesis would go, by simply observing the formicarium in action, the ants react to the observation and change their pattern of behaviour? If yes, the result would be akin to the observer effect changing the spatial structure of the space.

Objects do clearly affect the structural relation of space. Co-creation between objects and space thus occurs. How much autonomy do objects have within a space? Is it only after objects develop into observers/participators that they gain autonomy over their space? Can we even consider objects autonomous at this stage? Hence, whilst Spatial Realism adheres to some extent to Ontic Structural Realism, I believe a bridge is needed between it and Object-Oriented Ontology. Whether or not that bridge is Spatial Realism as proposed here, in the very act of attempting to bridge, in relinking, in reconnecting, perhaps thinking about space in the framework of Spatial Realism will do exactly what it proposes on the tin: imagine elusive space at the base of reality.

1. The space that structure both enforces within its local position and contains within its boundaries.