Of all the puzzles in quantum physics, none has received more philosophical attention than the “measurement problem.” Why does a quantum system, described by a superposition of possibilities, appear to “collapse” into a single outcome upon observation? What constitutes a measurement? And how does the act of observation affect the system itself?
These questions arise only if we assume that quantum states are like veiled objects — hovering in indeterminate form until we look, at which point reality snaps into focus. But this picture reflects an ontological mistake: it imports object-based metaphysics into a relational domain.
From a relational perspective, there is no collapse. There is no moment when “the wavefunction becomes real.” Instead, measurement is the selection of coherence from among constrained potential — a perspectival resolution within a field of ongoing relation.
1. The Myth of the Observer
-
In classical metaphysics, an observer stands apart from the world, revealing what is already there,
-
In quantum theory, this model breaks down: the act of measurement is not passive observation but an active participation in the field’s resolution,
-
The “observer” is not a special consciousness, nor a unique apparatus, but a locus of construal — a point at which affordance resolves into actualisation.
2. No Collapse — Just Resolution
-
The so-called “collapse of the wavefunction” is not a physical process. It is a shift in the systemic configuration — a new coherence achieved under constraint,
-
The quantum state is not a thing that collapses. It is a structure of potential, which becomes punctuated into actuality when conditions align,
-
This shift is not discontinuous or metaphysical — it is an ordinary phase transition in a relational system.
3. Measurement as a Perspectival Cut
-
Measurement is not the recovery of truth but the enactment of perspective,
-
In relational ontology, actuality arises through cuts in the field of potential: each measurement constrains what can be resolved and how coherence can form,
-
The “result” of a measurement is not a hidden value revealed, but a punctualisation — a local actualisation compatible with the observer’s relational constraints.
4. Decoherence ≠ Explanation
-
Decoherence theory helps explain why interference disappears when a system interacts with its environment — but it does not resolve the measurement problem,
-
It describes how superpositions become locally unobservable, not why one outcome is realised rather than another,
-
From a relational standpoint, this “selection” is not mysterious — it is the outcome of a system-level resolution across constrained potentials.
5. The Logic of Selection
-
What determines the outcome of measurement is not chance in the abstract, but systemic possibility under constraint,
-
Each potential outcome is a coherence compatible with the system’s total structure (including the apparatus and context),
-
Measurement, then, is the synchronisation of a subsystem’s perspective with the field’s available resolutions — a kind of perspectival alignment, not a metaphysical choice.
Closing
The measurement problem dissolves when we relinquish the idea of quantum states as incomplete objects awaiting discovery. Instead, we recognise them as structured affordances — relational possibilities shaped by constraint, awaiting coherence through resolution.
To measure is not to collapse a world, but to co-participate in its articulation. Not to pluck a value from obscurity, but to enact a cut — selecting from among the patterns the field already holds in tension.
In the next post, we turn to the role of probability in quantum theory — not as randomness or ignorance, but as a structural grammar of constrained becoming.
No comments:
Post a Comment