Measurement lies at the heart of quantum theory — and at the heart of its puzzles. The so-called “measurement problem” is not a single problem, but a cluster of paradoxes arising from the assumption that measurement reveals something objectively already there.
In standard interpretations, measurement causes a “collapse” of the wavefunction. In more radical views, it generates reality. But in all cases, measurement is treated as a moment of transition between a hidden quantum world and a manifest classical one — between probability and fact.
In a relational ontology, however, this framing is mistaken. There is no world of hidden particles waiting to be revealed. What we call measurement is a punctualisation — a selection event within a structured field of potential. It is not a window onto the real, but a construal: a local, stabilised configuration of relational possibility.
1. Measurement in Standard Quantum Mechanics
Traditionally:
-
Systems evolve according to deterministic equations (e.g. Schrödinger’s equation),
-
But when a measurement occurs, the system “collapses” into a definite state,
-
The result is probabilistic, governed by the Born rule.
This leads to deep puzzles:
-
When does measurement happen?
-
What counts as a “measurer”?
-
Is the wavefunction real, or just a tool for predicting outcomes?
2. Relational Reframing: Measurement as Selection in a Field of Potential
In relational terms:
-
There is no separate observer or measuring device distinct from the system,
-
The “system” is the relational field as a whole, undergoing constrained transformation,
-
A measurement is a local actualisation — a point at which potential is punctualised under specific constraints.
It is not that something was “unknown” and is now “revealed.” Rather, something was unformed, and is now brought forth through a construal event — a stabilisation under pressure.
3. The Role of Constraints
What determines the outcome of a measurement?
From this perspective:
-
Not a pre-existing hidden variable,
-
Not a magical collapse,
-
But the pattern of constraint in the field at the moment of punctualisation.
Measurement outcomes reflect what the system allows to be stabilised under the given configuration of relational tension.
This is why repeated measurement under similar conditions yields consistent distributions — not because randomness rules, but because the field permits only certain forms of coherence.
4. No Observer Privilege
In relational ontology:
-
The “observer” is not outside the system,
-
Measurement is not something done to a system by an agent,
-
Instead, it is a local construal within the same field — a systemic co-selection.
This dissolves the observer paradox: no special metaphysical status needs to be granted to human consciousness, decohering devices, or external apparatus. All are nodes within the same field, participating in the same ongoing construal.
5. Measurement and Meaning
Measurement is not just physical — it is also semiotic. It is:
-
A construal of potential under constraint,
-
A coordination of possibilities into a local coherence,
-
A phenomenon (in the ontological sense) — not a glimpse of the real, but a constituted event.
This is not a limitation or a deficiency. It is what makes phenomena possible at all. To measure is to select a resolution from the multiplicity of what could have happened — not by chance, but by systemic determination.
Closing
In sum, measurement is not collapse, discovery, or disturbance. It is the actualisation of a possible coherence in a structured field. It does not reveal what is “there,” but brings forth what is possible — within the constraints of a relational configuration.
In the next post, we will turn to the notorious puzzle of non-locality — and show how a relational ontology dissolves the paradox without appeal to hidden influence or spooky action at a distance.
No comments:
Post a Comment