THE CIRCULARITY OF MEDIATION

The rejection of instantaneous interaction is presented, in contemporary physics, as a necessary consequence of the theory of relativity. This article shows that this rejection is not a logical impossibility but an inductive generalization—and that the argument supporting it is circular. The structure of the standard argument is reconstructed: “every interaction requires mediation; every mediation requires time; therefore, no interaction can be instantaneous.” The first premise is inductive, not logical: it is based on interactions whose mediation is interpreted, not observed—and there are cases, such as contact interactions, in which mediation does not exist, and the inference to “every interaction” is of the same kind as the inference “all bodies fall” before Newton. The article then examines the most serious objection against instantaneous interaction—the objection that it would imply superluminal communication and, with it, a violation of causality (consequence before cause). It shows that superluminal communication, although theoretically possible within the program (if interaction is instantaneous), is practically difficult because of noise. It shows that the causality objection presupposes the geometric interpretation of spacetime—the interpretation according to which relative simultaneity is a property of the world, not of the formalism—which is neither logically necessary nor accepted by the program. Finally, it shows that the objection extrapolates the equations of relativity beyond the limits within which they have been confirmed, committing the same error that generates the vacuum catastrophe, singularities, and the other fantasies dissolved in Flor (2026k): the use of the abstract equation as if it were the qualified equation. The article also examines the third way—the deflationary position according to which “interaction” names nothing in the world, being only a category of description (Hume, Russell 1913, Rovelli)—and shows that, although internally consistent, it dissolves the possibility of explanation and, with it, the principal object of physics. The article does not prove that interaction is instantaneous; it removes the prejudice that prevents the question from being asked. The positive defense of instantaneity, with its experimental consequences, will be developed in a future version of this article. The article also draws on two historical precedents—Einstein’s “spooky” and the Enlightenment rejection of Newtonian gravitation—to show that the rejection of instantaneous interaction has been rhetorical and ideological, but not scientific.