In standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, measurement is both central and paradoxical. It marks the transition from possibility to actuality — the “collapse” of the wavefunction into a definite state. Yet the theory itself provides no internal account of this process. The formalism predicts probabilities, but not outcomes; it describes evolution, but not resolution.
This discontinuity has prompted various attempts at explanation: hidden variables, multiple worlds, decoherence, observer-induced collapse. But all such accounts depend — implicitly or explicitly — on an entity-based ontology: systems “have” states; observers “make” measurements; outcomes “exist” or “do not yet exist”.
A relational ontology reframes the issue. Measurement is not the revelation of a pre-existing property, nor the creation of one ex nihilo. It is the resolution of a relational field under constraint — a punctualisation of distributed potential into a locally stable coherence.
1. No Particle, No Property, No Collapse
-
Standard views treat measurement as the moment a quantum system “chooses” one outcome from many,
-
But this presumes the system is a thing with properties — that it has values waiting to be revealed or selected,
-
Relationally, there is no “value” prior to construal, and no “entity” apart from the field that supports it,
-
Measurement is not collapse, but actualisation: a local restructuring of the system into a configuration with interpretive closure.
2. Measurement as Punctualisation of Potential
-
A quantum system is a field of relational possibility — a superposition of configurations structured by constraints,
-
The act of measurement introduces a new constraint — a coupling between the system and the measuring apparatus,
-
This coupling reconfigures the field — not by selecting from pre-existing values, but by producing a resolution that satisfies the new relational totality,
-
Measurement does not disclose what “was there” — it constitutes what is now coherent, given the entangled constraints.
3. Observation as Participation, Not Access
-
The observer is not a detached viewer but a participant in the system’s construal,
-
The measuring device does not record an outcome; it helps structure the field such that an outcome becomes locally coherent,
-
There is no boundary between system and observer; there is only relational differentiation within a global field,
-
Thus, the “cut” between quantum system and classical apparatus is not a metaphysical divide — it is a perspectival shift in the organisation of constraint.
4. Decoherence and the Limits of Interpretation
-
Decoherence theory shows how quantum systems appear classical when entangled with large environments,
-
But decoherence does not explain why one outcome occurs — only why interference becomes unobservable,
-
Relationally, this is enough: the point is not to explain why this result happened, but to recognise that resulthood itself is a localised effect of relational tension resolving into coherence,
-
Measurement is not a breakdown of the quantum — it is the crystallisation of structure under new constraints.
5. Meaning as Actualisation, Not Discovery
-
In a relational ontology, to measure is not to discover but to instantiate: to bring about a configuration that now stands as meaningful within the given field,
-
The “result” is not an ontological primitive; it is an emergent coherence, retrospectively legible as a value only because the field has stabilised,
-
Thus, measurement is not a portal to reality — it is one way that reality becomes: not substance observed, but potential resolved.
Closing
Measurement is not a problem to be solved but a phenomenon to be re-described. When we let go of entity-based metaphors, the so-called paradox dissolves. There is no collapse, no observer effect, no spooky instant of decision. There is only the relational reorganisation of a field under constraint — a transformation from open potential to patterned coherence.
In the next post, we will explore the role of symmetry and its breaking — not as a violation of order, but as the generative mechanism by which relational systems differentiate into actualities.
No comments:
Post a Comment