We have seen that conventional interpretations of quantum theory, including Bohmian mechanics, inherit a classical metaphysics grounded in particles, trajectories, and space as container. These frameworks run into paradox precisely because the phenomena they describe are not well captured by the concepts they rely on.
This post takes a constructive step. It begins to articulate an alternative metaphysical picture—one in which potential, relation, and constraint form the ontological primitives. This shift allows us to interpret quantum systems not as configurations of substance but as fields of possibility, structured and actualised in context.
1. From Objects to Fields
Rather than asking “What particles exist?” or “Where is the system located?”, a relational ontology asks:
What configurations of potential are afforded under present constraints?
In this view, a quantum system is not an ensemble of point-like particles but a coherent relational field. The wavefunction, rather than encoding a superposition of possible positions, encodes a distribution of potential coherence—a structured topological landscape within which certain transitions are favoured, others suppressed.
Importantly, this field is not embedded in space; space is emergent from the regularities and constraints within the field. What we perceive as position is a stable coherence within a wider pattern of relational transformation.
2. Actualisation as Resolution of Tension
In classical mechanics, motion is the change of position of a thing. In a relational field, by contrast, change is understood as the resolution of systemic tension—the shift from one configuration of relation to another, driven by gradients of potential.
This model bears a family resemblance to other constraint-driven systems:
-
In thermodynamics, systems evolve toward lower free energy.
-
In biological regulation, homeostatic processes maintain coherence under perturbation.
-
In dynamical systems theory, attractors define stable states toward which trajectories converge.
In quantum systems, we might similarly treat actualisation as a kind of coherence-seeking behaviour within a constrained field of affordance.
3. Rethinking Measurement
Measurement, on this account, is not an external act collapsing a wavefunction. It is a punctuation event—a moment where the ongoing dynamics of a field encounter a boundary condition (an apparatus, a detection threshold, a macro-level observer), and the system resolves into a configuration of coherence compatible with those constraints.
This process is not ontologically exceptional. It is a particular case of systemic resolution—where the open potential of a field undergoes modulated selection in context. What is measured is not the state of a pre-existing object, but the outcome of a constrained transformation.
4. Temporal Structure Without Trajectory
Without particles moving through space, how do we make sense of time?
In relational terms, time is not a background parameter. It is an index of transformation—the internal unfolding of the system as it moves across gradients of constraint. Temporal structure emerges from:
-
The ordering of transitions within the field,
-
The symmetry-breaking dynamics that generate sequences,
-
The mutual conditioning of states (e.g. interference, decoherence).
Tunnelling, for instance, is not a particle moving through a region but a sequence of actualisations under tension, whose rate (previously mislabelled “speed”) reflects how rapidly coherence propagates across affordances.
5. Philosophical Echoes and Scientific Payoffs
This ontological reframing finds echoes in multiple traditions:
-
Whitehead’s process metaphysics: events are the fundamental units, and relations precede things.
-
Simondon’s individuation theory: being is always in formation, and identity arises through modulation of potential.
-
Quantum field theory: fields, not particles, are the primary ontology; particles are excitations.
By embracing this perspective, we gain more than metaphysical clarity. We gain:
-
A way to interpret quantum formalism without contradiction,
-
A framework for integrating quantum theory with emergent spacetime models,
-
A conceptual basis for cross-disciplinary unification (e.g. with biology, thermodynamics, information theory),
-
And a path toward de-mystifying quantum paradox without returning to classical metaphysics.
Closing Thought
We are not proposing a new theory of quantum mechanics. We are articulating a new ontological background against which existing theory can be interpreted. This background does not presuppose particles, space, or substance. It begins with relational fields, potential, and constraint—and treats coherence, not position, as the signature of being.
In the next post, we will consider how this framework can be extended to relativistic contexts, and how space and time themselves may emerge from patterns of relation and constraint—not as neutral backgrounds, but as expressions of systemic coherence at larger scales.
No comments:
Post a Comment