The “measurement problem” has haunted quantum theory for a century. In the standard view, a system evolves unitarily according to the Schrödinger equation — until a measurement occurs. At that point, something mysterious happens: a superposition “collapses” into a definite outcome.
But what is measurement? Is it an act of observation? A physical interaction? A conscious event? A thermodynamic threshold?
In a relational ontology, measurement is not an exceptional process layered atop physical law. It is a relational transition — the actualisation of potential within a structured field of constraint. There is no collapse, no abrupt change in ontological status. There is only a selection event: a punctualisation of coherence.
1. Collapse as a Category Error
-
The “collapse” metaphor assumes that the quantum state represents a real thing that changes state,
-
But the quantum state, as we’ve seen, is a field of potential coherence, not an evolving substance,
-
To say it collapses is like saying a possibility “falls down” when it becomes actual — an image that confuses metaphor with mechanism.
2. Measurement as Selection, Not Revelation
-
Measurement does not “reveal” a pre-existing property of a system,
-
It enacts a cut in the field of possibility, producing a configuration that is now locally coherent under constraint,
-
The outcome is not found, but formed — not discovered, but disclosed through relational tension.
3. The Role of Constraint
-
Every measurement setup introduces constraints — spatial, energetic, material — which structure the field of potential actualisations,
-
What becomes “real” is that configuration which satisfies coherence within those constraints,
-
Hence, different measurements are not different questions posed to the same system, but different topological cuts in a shared relational field.
4. Implications for Objectivity
-
The myth of objectivity assumes that measurement outcomes reflect properties of independent entities,
-
A relational view recognises that outcomes are relationally emergent: what is observed depends on how the observing system is embedded in the relational field,
-
This does not imply subjectivity or arbitrariness — but rather situated selection: the meaningful resolution of potential under structured affordances.
Closing
Measurement is not a rupture in the flow of physical law. It is not the mysterious border between quantum and classical, nor a gateway through which knowledge passes from the virtual to the real.
It is a relational event — the point at which constraint resolves potential into punctual coherence.
To measure, in this sense, is not to interrupt the system but to co-participate in its unfolding.
In the next post, we will examine how this rethinking of measurement reframes the question of observer and participation — moving beyond subject–object dualisms toward a deeper understanding of entangled agency.
No comments:
Post a Comment