Quantum entanglement has long been cited as one of the most mysterious features of the quantum world. Two particles, once entangled, appear to share a connection that transcends distance: measure one, and the other’s state is instantly determined, no matter how far apart they are. Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance.” Bell’s theorem and the many experiments it inspired have confirmed that these correlations cannot be explained by any local hidden variables.
In standard interpretations, entanglement raises deep puzzles: how can a measurement on one particle affect another instantly? Does information travel faster than light? Or are both particles simply parts of a deeper, holistic system? The resulting tension between locality, realism, and determinism fuels a continuing ontological crisis.
A relational ontology dissolves the crisis by reframing the question. Entanglement is not a mysterious connection between things. It is a sign of shared constraint within a relational field. What is entangled is not “particles,” but possibilities — the systemic affordances that govern how coherence emerges. There is no influence across space. There is only nonseparability of potential.
1. Entanglement as Shared Possibility
-
In a relational framework, an “entangled state” is not a pairing of objects with hidden links,
-
It is a configuration of constrained potential: the possibilities of one subsystem are not independent of the other,
-
This is not a violation of locality, but a refusal of separability: the systems are not isolated; they are phases of the same coherent field.
2. No Action, No Signal, No Paradox
-
Standard interpretations worry about faster-than-light “influences” or retrocausal coordination,
-
But in the relational view, there is no signal, no transfer, and no causal connection between distinct entities,
-
What appears to be “instantaneous coordination” is simply the system resolving itself holistically under constraint.
3. Measurement as Field Resolution
-
A measurement is not the revelation of a hidden property, nor the transmission of information,
-
It is a coherence event: a shift in how the system constrains and resolves its internal potential,
-
When one part is measured, the field of affordance shifts — not because something changes over distance, but because the system’s configuration has reorganised.
4. Entangled States as Distributed Grammar
-
An entangled wavefunction encodes a set of allowable configurations,
-
These configurations cannot be factored into independent parts: the system has no separable grammar,
-
In this sense, entanglement is a distributed syntax: the potential for coherence is jointly specified.
5. From Spookiness to Structure
-
What looks like spooky connection is, in fact, a manifestation of structured constraint,
-
The entangled system is not two things linked across space; it is a single configuration resolved across multiple loci,
-
This resolution appears nonlocal because we have misdescribed the system as composed of separable parts.
Closing
Entanglement does not challenge the relational view; it confirms it. The phenomena that trouble classical ontology — instant correlations, inseparable outcomes, apparent violations of locality — are all straightforward consequences of understanding the system as a coherent field of constraint, rather than a collection of objects with intrinsic properties.
In the next post, we will turn to the question of information in quantum theory — and how a relational model reframes it not as a transferable commodity, but as a measure of constraint, coherence, and transformation within a system of potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment