Entanglement is often cited as the most counterintuitive feature of quantum theory — Einstein famously dismissed it as “spooky action at a distance.” The standard view interprets it as a kind of hidden connection between particles, whereby a measurement on one instantly determines the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are.
Yet such interpretations import problematic metaphors: particles as separate entities, correlations as mysterious influences, measurement as magical determination. From a relational ontological perspective, these assumptions mislead.
Entanglement does not signal distant influence. It signals prior interdependence — a state in which the parts have not yet individuated into separable systems. What is entangled is not substance, but coherence — a shared structure of potential across the relational field.
1. No Pre-Existing Parts
-
In relational terms, systems are not prior to relations; rather, systems are articulated within relations,
-
Entanglement arises not between distinct entities, but within a coherence field that has not resolved into separable actualisations,
-
The “particles” are already a misleading construal — what exists is a structured potential, not a set of things.
2. Correlation Without Communication
-
The correlations observed in entangled systems do not require causal transmission,
-
They reflect shared constraints: the system's potential was structured such that, under measurement, only certain combinations of outcomes remain coherent,
-
These are not signals sent between parts, but resolutions of a jointly constrained field.
3. Measurement as Differentiation, Not Revelation
-
In standard interpretations, measurement “reveals” the value a particle already had, or “collapses” a superposition,
-
But in a relational account, measurement is a shift in constraint topology — it selects and stabilises a particular resolution of potential,
-
The “result” is not drawn from a particle’s secret property, but from the field’s constrained coherence under new conditions.
4. Entanglement and the Failure of Local Ontology
-
The need to explain entanglement using influences or hidden variables arises only if we assume locality of being — that systems are composed of separable entities,
-
But entanglement is intelligible once we abandon this: relational potential is not locally possessed; it is structured across the field,
-
Local outcomes appear coherent not because of causal mediation, but because construal was never local to begin with.
5. Reframing the “Weirdness”
-
Entanglement is not weird because it violates physics; it’s weird because it violates our object-based intuitions,
-
Once we accept that the relata of quantum theory are patterns of construal within a field of potential, entanglement becomes an expected feature of such systems,
-
Not a puzzle to be solved, but a clue to the nature of construal itself.
Closing
Entanglement is not a quantum quirk. It is a structural feature of relational ontology — a manifestation of co-actualisation within a coherence field that has not yet resolved into separable parts. It shows us that being is not built from individuals, but emerges through differential constraint.
In the next post, we’ll explore the question of probability in quantum theory — not as a measure of ignorance, but as a grammar of expectation within relational fields under constraint.
No comments:
Post a Comment