Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) : Synthesis: Substance vs. Structure
The Ontological Inversion: Substantialism vs. Functionalist Structure
An analysis of the divergence between Jacob Barandes’ Physicalism and Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST).
1. The Directionality of Derivation
At the heart of the tension between Barandes’ physics and RST lies a fundamental disagreement on the direction of emergence. While both frameworks grapple with the relationship between the "Map" and the "Territory," they prioritize different ends of the spectrum:
- RST (Top-Down/Functionalist): In linguistic discourse analysis, RST posits that the "reality" of a text is an emergent property of its functional intent. Here, the Map (the relational structure) precedes the Territory (the semantic meaning). The text only becomes "real" or coherent through the abstract relationship—the Satellite-Nucleus link—rather than the raw data of the lexical units.
- Barandes (Bottom-Up/Substantialist): Barandes advocates for a return to Substantialism. He contends that modern physics has succumbed to a mathematical formalism where the "Map" (Hilbert spaces, wave functions) has been mistaken for the "Territory" (the underlying physical reality). His methodology moves from the concrete physical object—the "rock"—toward the math, rather than allowing the math to dictate what is physically possible.
2. The Crisis of Reification
The conflict centers on what we choose to reify—that is, what we treat as a fundamental "thing" versus a mere descriptive tool:
| Framework | The "Real" (Reified) | The "Tool" (De-reified) |
|---|---|---|
| RST | Functional Relations (e.g., Evidence, Concession) | Isolated Lexical Units |
| Barandes | Physical Particles/Fields in Space-Time | Hilbert Space/Mathematical Operators |
In RST, the Relation is the fundamental building block of coherence. For Barandes, the Relation (the math) is often a "neat" abstraction that masks a "messy" but objective physical process. He warns that by falling in love with the elegance of the Map, we lose sight of the actual ground we are walking on.
3. Synthesis: Substance vs. Structure
"If the physical substance (the 'what') does not dictate the structure (the 'how'), then the model is an empty formalism."
Aligning with Barandes suggests a commitment to the idea that Substance must constrain Form. RST represents the inverse: it asserts that Form (Structure) creates Substance (Meaning). Barandes’ critique of modern quantum mechanics serves as a broader philosophical warning: we cannot ignore the "particle moving in space" just because the high-dimensional vector math looks more sophisticated.
Addendum: The Heisenberg Cut as a Functional Boundary
The most striking evidence of this "opposite direction" is found in the treatment of the Heisenberg Cut. In standard Quantum Mechanics, the Cut is the point where the wave function (the Map) collapses into a measurement (the Territory). This creates a logical friction that mirrors the tension in Discourse Analysis:
RST's "Functional Cut"
In RST, a text segment only gains meaning once it is "cut" and assigned a relation. The Structure defines the Substance. Without the relation (the Map), the words are just noise.
Barandes' "Physical Continuity"
Barandes rejects the Cut as an artificial imposition. He argues that Substance must be continuous. If the Map (math) requires a "Cut" to function, then the Map is fundamentally flawed, not the Territory.
The "Map-Territory" Paradox
Barandes’ central thesis is that we have over-mathematized our ontology. He views the current state of physics as a "Rhetorical" success but a "Substantial" failure. By treating Hilbert space as the primary reality, physicists have essentially performed a high-level RST analysis on the universe—organizing it into beautiful, functional relations—while losing the "localized intensities" (the actual particles) that should have dictated the math in the first place.
Insight: While RST uses Structure to solve the problem of Meaning, Barandes argues that Structure has become the problem masking the Substance. He is, in effect, the "Anti-RST" of the physics world: he demands that the Nucleus (Reality) exist independently of its Satellites (Mathematical Frameworks).
