In classical physics, causality is often imagined as a chain of events: one thing causes another by exerting a force or transmitting energy across space and time. This model — rooted in Newtonian mechanics — presumes distinct entities interacting through clearly defined channels. Cause and effect are linked by temporal sequence and local influence.
Quantum mechanics, however, disrupts this picture. Entangled systems exhibit correlations that cannot be explained by any local causal mechanism. Measurement outcomes seem to arise discontinuously, without identifiable precursors. And at the foundational level, processes appear reversible — yet our experience of the world insists on asymmetry, sequence, and consequence.
These paradoxes suggest that causality, like time and space, may need to be rethought. In a relational ontology, causality is not an arrow connecting events, but a pattern of coherence emerging under constraint. It is not what pushes, but what resolves — the structure through which relational potential actualises.
1. Classical Causality and Its Limits
-
In classical terms, causality requires:
-
A distinct agent (the cause),
-
A target (the effect),
-
A channel of influence (force, energy, or signal),
-
-
This model fails in quantum contexts:
-
Entangled particles display correlations without any mediating signal,
-
Measurement appears to “cause” an outcome, but only retroactively — the result isn’t determined until it occurs,
-
-
Such cases reveal that the classical notion of cause presumes more than the system provides.
2. Causality as Coherence
-
In relational terms, causality is not a vector but a configuration — a way that relational potentials fit together to support coherent actualisation,
-
What “causes” a particular event is not another event, but the systemic constraints that make that event the most coherent resolution of the field at that moment,
-
Causality becomes the compatibility of transitions — not one thing making another happen, but a system reconfiguring into its next stable state.
3. From Influence to Constraint
-
Rather than asking “what influenced this outcome?”, we ask: what constrained the field to favour this actualisation over others?
-
In this view:
-
A measurement outcome is not the result of a push,
-
It is the culmination of a systemic tension resolving into coherence under the observer–instrument configuration,
-
-
Causality is about field-level selection, not interaction between parts.
4. Entanglement and Causal Ambiguity
-
Entangled systems display correlations that violate classical causal explanation:
-
No signal passes between particles,
-
No causal direction can be assigned,
-
-
In a relational ontology, this is no longer a problem: the entangled pair is one system, and what appears as mutual influence is just coherence reasserting itself across constraint,
-
There is no need for backward causation or acausal magic — only systemic actualisation across differentiated loci.
5. Causality Without Direction?
-
Many quantum processes are time-symmetric — they do not prefer a direction of unfolding,
-
Yet we experience causality as directional: past causes lead to future effects,
-
Relationally, this asymmetry emerges not from laws, but from the structure of construal:
-
Our observational interface breaks symmetry through selection and irreversible resolution,
-
The “arrow” of causality is not fundamental, but a projection from within a constrained perspective.
-
Closing
To rethink causality is not to deny connection or consequence. It is to shift from a picture of pushing parts to one of emergent coherence — to see cause not as what brings about change, but as the pattern by which a system transitions under tension. In quantum physics, this means abandoning the quest for local influences, and embracing relational reconfiguration as the root of emergence.
In the next post, we will return to the concept of quantum potential — not as a hidden energy or guiding field, but as a structured space of relation: a system’s theory of its own actualisation.
No comments:
Post a Comment