In the previous post, we outlined a set of unresolved ontological problems in quantum theory—ranging from the measurement problem to the paradoxes of nonlocality and identity. Each of these reflects a deeper tension: modern physics continues to rely on a conceptual architecture inherited from classical metaphysics, even as its phenomena undermine that very architecture.
This post begins the process of rethinking that architecture. We contrast the classical substance-based ontology with a relational/processual ontology, and examine how the latter might better accommodate the empirical and formal structure of quantum physics. In doing so, we lay the groundwork for a conceptual shift—one that interprets quantum systems not as collections of things, but as fields of relation undergoing transformation under constraint.
1. Substance Ontology: The Classical Assumptions
Classical physics rests on a set of metaphysical assumptions that are often taken for granted:
-
Objects are primary: The world is composed of discrete entities (particles, bodies, fields) that possess intrinsic properties.
-
Space and time are containers: Objects move and interact within space and time, which exist independently of them.
-
Causality is local: Interactions occur via forces transmitted continuously through space, and no influence travels faster than light.
-
Properties are possessed: An object has its mass, location, and charge independently of observation or relation.
This ontology proved adequate for Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian fields, and even special relativity. But quantum theory consistently violates these assumptions:
-
Particles do not have definite positions prior to measurement.
-
Entangled systems cannot be decomposed into independent parts.
-
Observables depend on measurement context.
-
Identical particles cannot be distinguished by intrinsic properties.
2. Relational Ontology: Core Principles
A relational ontology reconfigures the metaphysical foundation. Instead of beginning with discrete entities in pre-existing space, it posits:
-
Relations precede relata: What exists fundamentally is not things, but patterns of dependence, interaction, or constraint.
-
Space and time are emergent: Spatiotemporal structure arises from the dynamic organisation of relations—not as a container, but as an effect.
-
Identity is perspectival: A system’s individuation depends on its coherence and contrast within a wider relational field.
-
Properties are enacted: Observable features emerge through interaction; they are not pre-existing attributes of isolated objects.
This orientation is compatible with a wide range of process philosophies (Whitehead, Simondon, Deleuze), but here we treat it not as a speculative metaphysics, but as a practical framework for interpreting physical theories.
3. Quantum Mechanics in Relational Terms
Recasting quantum mechanics in relational terms shifts our understanding of its central features:
| Phenomenon | Substance View | Relational View |
|---|---|---|
| Wavefunction | A complete description of an object | A structured field of potential across relational space |
| Measurement | Collapse of a property | Resolution of tension within systemic constraints |
| Entanglement | Spooky link between particles | Expression of non-separable relational configuration |
| Particle identity | Individuated by intrinsic properties | Patterned coherence within a shared field |
| Tunnelling | Particle overcomes a barrier | Reconfiguration of affordance under dynamic constraint |
This reorientation removes the need to explain "where the particle goes" or "what the system is doing" when unmeasured. There are no hidden positions, no collapsing objects—only transitions across a field of structured possibility.
4. What Does This Buy Us?
By abandoning the metaphysics of substance, we gain several advantages:
-
Coherence with quantum formalism: The mathematical structure of quantum theory is naturally relational (e.g. Hilbert spaces, tensor products, transition amplitudes).
-
Clarification of paradoxes: Many so-called mysteries—wave–particle duality, collapse, nonlocality—arise only when we try to impose substance metaphors on a non-substance theory.
-
Continuity with emergent spacetime theories: In quantum gravity and causal set theory, spacetime itself is treated as emergent from relations—aligning well with this ontological shift.
-
Compatibility with dynamical systems: The emphasis on system-wide constraint and evolution aligns quantum ontology with broader frameworks in complexity, thermodynamics, and biology.
5. Ontology as Conceptual Infrastructure
Ontology in physics is not optional. Whether explicit or implicit, every theory encodes assumptions about what exists and how. When those assumptions become misaligned with the behaviour of the systems we’re studying, paradoxes emerge.
Relational ontology is not a theory in itself—it is a conceptual infrastructure that enables new kinds of theory. It offers an alternative to the intuitive, object-based metaphors that continue to dominate physics education and popular science communication. And it suggests that rather than asking "what is a particle doing?", we might ask: how does coherence reorganise under constraint?
In the next post, we’ll apply this framework to a concrete case: quantum tunnelling. We’ll revisit recent experiments and show how relational ontology reframes the question, not as "how fast does a particle pass through a barrier?" but as "how rapidly does potential resolve under topological tension?"
No comments:
Post a Comment