In this post, we examine measurement as an ontological event, not a technical procedure. In a relational ontology, measurement is not about detecting but about differentiating—a shift in coherence across a field of constraint that gives rise to the appearance of a discrete outcome.
1. Classical Assumptions About Measurement
The classical model treats measurement as:
-
Revelatory: it tells us what already is,
-
Objective: it does not depend on the observer,
-
Repeatable: the same conditions should yield the same result.
But in quantum contexts, measurement is:
-
Constitutive: it brings a particular outcome into being,
-
Context-dependent: what is measured depends on how it is measured,
-
Probabilistic: repeated trials yield statistical patterns, not certainty.
These features demand a radical reconsideration of what “measurement” even means.
2. Relational Measurement: From Revelation to Selection
In a relational ontology:
-
Measurement is not the exposure of a property, but the resolution of potential into coherence,
-
It marks a punctuation in the ongoing flow of relational transformation,
-
The “result” is a local stabilisation within a field of distributed tensions.
Thus, the measuring apparatus is not separate from the system—it is part of the relational topology that enables a particular form of actualisation.
3. The Role of Constraint and Affordance
Measurement becomes possible only because:
-
Certain constraints are in place (e.g. waveguides, mirrors, slits),
-
The system and context are configured to permit a limited range of outcomes,
-
The relational field is biased toward certain coherent resolutions.
What is “measured” is not the world itself but the way the world resolves under a specific set of entangled conditions. This is not relativism but situated determinacy.
4. Measurement as Ontological Differentiation
Rather than extracting a value from a pre-existing system, measurement in a relational framework is:
-
A cut in the field of potential—a selective articulation of what can become,
-
A singular actualisation that differentiates a particular outcome from a multiplicity of possibilities,
-
A moment where the system says “this” rather than remaining in a state of open coherence.
Importantly, this differentiation is not final. The field continues to evolve, and further measurements reconfigure it anew.
5. Implications for Science and Understanding
Recasting measurement this way alters scientific epistemology:
-
The emphasis shifts from precision to relational consistency,
-
Measurement becomes a moment of emergence, not of detection,
-
Experiments are not neutral tests of theory, but sites of world-making—they structure the real through constraint.
This invites a more humble and responsive science: one that acknowledges its participatory role in bringing phenomena to articulation.
Closing
In a relational ontology, measurement is not the revelation of what is, but the event of becoming—a site where potential resolves under constraint, where the relational field briefly congeals into something nameable. To measure, then, is not to inspect an object, but to join a system in transformation and register its momentary articulation.
In the next post, we’ll turn to the wavefunction itself. Is it a real physical entity? A computational tool? Or something else entirely—a relational diagram of possibility?
No comments:
Post a Comment