Probability in quantum theory is famously puzzling. In classical contexts, probability usually expresses ignorance: we don’t know all the variables, so we assign likelihoods. But in quantum mechanics, even when we know the wavefunction — supposedly the full description of a system — the outcomes of measurements remain inherently probabilistic. This raises deep ontological questions: Is reality fundamentally random? Is the wavefunction incomplete?
From a relational point of view, this entire framing may be off the mark. Probability in quantum theory does not reflect ignorance of an underlying deterministic state, nor does it mark intrinsic randomness. Instead, it reflects the organisation of potential: the system’s current constraints support a structured range of possible actualisations, each with a specific coherence-weight.
1. Probabilities as Modulated Potentials
-
In a relational field, potential is not uniform — certain actualisations are more “resonant” with the current configuration,
-
Quantum probability does not describe what will happen, nor what might have happened, but how likely each resolution is, given the field’s structure,
-
The Born rule (probability = squared amplitude) captures a constraint-weighted grammar of actualisation, not a statistical gamble.
2. No Hidden Certainty
-
Hidden-variable theories try to restore classical determinism by positing deeper truths behind quantum probabilities,
-
But relational ontology rejects this model entirely: there is no “true value” hidden behind the veil,
-
What exists is a structured field of constrained possibility, and the so-called randomness is simply a feature of its underdetermination at a given moment.
3. Actualisation as Selection Under Tension
-
A “measurement” doesn’t uncover a pre-existing value — it’s a moment of selection, where one configuration stabilises out of many,
-
Probability describes the internal structure of the system’s readiness to resolve in various directions under new constraints,
-
In this view, probability is more like tension resolution in music than coin-flipping — not ignorance, but expressive potential.
4. Relational Frequency, Not Objective Chance
-
Quantum probabilities make statistical predictions across ensembles — but this does not mean reality itself is stochastic,
-
What repeats is not chance, but systemic constraint: identical setups yield statistically similar outcomes because the same field tensions are present,
-
Thus, frequency is not evidence of randomness, but of regularity in the field’s modal grammar.
5. Implications for Epistemology
-
The problem arises only if we assume that all knowledge must track pre-existing facts,
-
In relational terms, knowledge is not about the world “out there,” but about the structure of potential actualisations given certain conditions,
-
Quantum probability is not a mystery to be explained — it is the signature of a system in flux, structured but unresolved.
Closing
Probability in quantum mechanics is not about chance, and not about ignorance. It expresses how a system’s internal configuration modulates its possible resolutions. It is a grammar of expectation, not a measure of surprise. What we call “chance” is the surface appearance of deep, field-wide tensions resolving under constraint.
In the next post, we’ll return to the question of the wavefunction — not as a physical object, nor as a state of knowledge, but as a dynamic construal of potential within a relational field.
No comments:
Post a Comment