Classical physics rests on a foundation of determinism: the idea that, given the complete state of a system at one time, its future (and past) is fully determined by physical laws. In Newtonian mechanics, the trajectory of a particle is uniquely fixed by its initial conditions. In relativistic physics, this determinism is carried forward into the geometry of spacetime. The world, on this view, is a closed system of causally connected events — everything is knowable in principle, even if not in practice.
But quantum theory destabilises this picture. It does not offer predictions of certainty, only of probability. The same preparation may yield multiple outcomes. Worse still (for determinists), the act of measurement appears to “choose” among outcomes, without any identifiable cause. In response, some physicists invoke hidden variables or many worlds. Others seek comfort in decoherence and thermodynamic entropy.
A relational ontology reframes the issue. Determinism is not the underlying fabric of reality. It is a particular construal that becomes viable under conditions of maximal constraint and minimal potentiality — where the space of possible transitions is so limited that a single outcome dominates. The world appears deterministic not because it is, but because under certain configurations, its potential collapses into predictable coherence.
1. Determinism as Reduction of Relational Freedom
-
A deterministic system is one in which only one actualisation is permitted,
-
This is not a metaphysical feature, but the product of extreme constraint: the field of potential is narrowed to the point where coherence can only stabilise in one way,
-
Determinism is thus a limit case: where the system’s relational openness has been effectively suppressed.
2. Classical Mechanics as Constrained Coherence
-
Newtonian mechanics works well for macroscopic bodies because the relevant constraints (mass, momentum, friction, etc.) so dominate the system that alternative outcomes are negligible,
-
This produces the illusion of determinism — but what is really happening is that the relational potential is highly canalised,
-
The system behaves “predictably” because the space of possibilities is extremely narrow.
3. Predictability vs. Ontology
-
Predictability is often conflated with reality: if we can model it deterministically, we assume it is deterministic,
-
But models are construals, not ontologies,
-
Relationally, we understand deterministic models as particular articulations of a field under simplifying assumptions — not as descriptions of how the world fundamentally works.
4. Decoherence and Classical Limit
-
Quantum systems exhibit indeterminacy, but under interaction with complex environments (decoherence), their relational structure becomes quasi-classical,
-
This is not a transition from indeterminacy to determinism, but from rich relational potential to a state where one construal dominates,
-
Classicality, like determinism, emerges — not from deeper laws, but from contextual resolution under constraint.
5. Why Determinism Persists
-
Determinism is appealing because it supports control, prediction, and intelligibility,
-
It gives the impression of a world ordered independently of our perspective — but this too is a construal,
-
In truth, determinism is a perspective that becomes viable when relational complexity is minimised — it is a feature of the cut, not the system.
Closing
In relational terms, determinism is not the essence of reality, but a special case of minimal ambiguity. It arises when the constraints are strong, the field is narrow, and the coherence is single-valued. It is a kind of ontological rigidity, useful for modelling but blind to the richness of potential that surrounds it.
In the next post, we will return to probability, exploring what it means to speak of chance in a system without hidden variables or intrinsic randomness — where indeterminacy is not ignorance, but a structural feature of meaning-making under constraint.
No comments:
Post a Comment