Probability occupies an uneasy space in modern physics. In classical mechanics, it signals ignorance: we lack the information to predict precisely, but the system itself is determinate. In quantum mechanics, however, probability is built in: the theory yields only statistical predictions, not certainties — even in principle. This leads to ongoing debates: is probability in quantum theory epistemic (a limitation of knowledge) or ontological (an intrinsic feature of reality)?
Most accounts vacillate between these poles. The Copenhagen interpretation accepts probability as fundamental but leaves its nature ambiguous. Bohmian mechanics seeks to restore determinism beneath apparent randomness. Many-worlds proposes that all possible outcomes occur — we just experience one branch.
A relational ontology approaches the matter differently. Probability is not about uncertainty over what “really happens”. It is a construal of how potential is structured and resolved under constraint. That is, it is an expression of the system’s internal tension — how its available actualisations are distributed in a given configuration.
1. Not Ignorance, Not Randomness
-
Classical probability reflects ignorance: we don’t know all the variables, so we calculate likelihoods based on distributions,
-
Quantum probability is often treated as ontological randomness: the system itself has no definite outcome until observed,
-
But a relational view avoids both: there is no hidden determinism, but also no meaningless chance,
-
Probability reflects the structure of the field — the shape of the system’s relational constraints in a given configuration.
2. Structured Potential, Not Chance
-
What we call a “probability distribution” is not a mask over reality, but a map of constrained potential,
-
Each possible outcome represents a region of coherence within the relational field,
-
The probability of that outcome reflects how strongly the system tends toward that coherence under current constraints,
-
This is not randomness — it is modulated affordance.
3. Measurement as Resolution, Not Selection
-
In quantum mechanics, measurement appears to “select” one outcome from a superposition of possibilities,
-
But relationally, measurement is a coherence event: a transformation in the field under constraint,
-
Probability describes the relative stability of each possible resolution — not the chance that an object will “choose” one path,
-
There is no object making choices; there is a system resolving a tension.
4. Context-Sensitive Distribution
-
Probability is not absolute. It depends on the configuration of the field: the constraints, couplings, and histories at play,
-
Change the context, and the distribution shifts — not because reality is uncertain, but because the field has reorganised,
-
This reaffirms that probability is relational: a property of the system’s structure, not an underlying dice-roll.
5. Quantum Indeterminacy as Interpretive Aperture
-
In classical thinking, indeterminacy is a failure — a lack of control, a gap in knowledge,
-
But relationally, indeterminacy is a feature: it is the openness of potential that allows meaning, agency, and novelty,
-
Probability quantifies this openness — not as chaos, but as the texture of possibility within a coordinated system.
Closing
Probability does not veil reality; it reveals the structured ambiguity of a system poised between multiple coherent actualisations. It is not the mark of a world without law, nor of a hidden machinery we have yet to grasp. It is a signature of relation: how the field itself expresses its tensions, preferences, and potential resolutions.
In the next post, we will take up the quantum wavefunction — not as a mystical object or a probability cloud, but as a relational grammar of potential, expressing the field’s affordances under a given configuration of constraint.
No comments:
Post a Comment