Few notions in quantum theory have attracted more scrutiny — and more confusion — than the observer. The idea that reality depends on whether or not something is “observed” has led to widespread speculation: is consciousness involved? Does the universe “collapse” into form only when watched? Does an unmeasured moon exist?
These questions all arise from a conceptual framework in which the world is divided between subjects who observe and objects that are observed — a framework that presupposes independent entities, external perspectives, and unidirectional access.
In a relational ontology, no such division is fundamental. Observation is not a mysterious metaphysical act. It is a construal — a situated actualisation within a system of potential. There is no observer outside the field; rather, each “observation” is a perspectival cut that resolves coherence from within the field itself.
1. Observation Is Not an External Action
-
In classical terms, the observer is outside the system — a passive recorder or active interrogator of objective reality,
-
In relational terms, the “observer” is an element of the system: not an outsider but a participant, whose presence reshapes the field of potential,
-
Observation is not performed on a system — it is a restructuring of the system itself under a newly introduced set of constraints.
2. Measurement as a Cut in the Field
-
What is traditionally called “measurement” is not the revelation of a pre-existing state but the punctualisation of relational potential,
-
A measuring apparatus does not access a value; it reshapes the system so that only certain outcomes become coherent,
-
The so-called observer effect is not a disturbance of a delicate system by a meddling agent, but the natural result of relational reconfiguration.
3. No Privileged Subjectivity
-
The idea that a conscious mind is required to collapse the wavefunction is unnecessary — and misleading,
-
In relational ontology, there is no special “observer” outside the system. Every construal is a cut from within — a perspectival resolution among interdependent potentials,
-
The role of the human observer is not metaphysically unique. Our instruments, perspectives, and interpretations are modes of construal, not sources of actuality.
4. Observation as Coherence-Actualisation
-
When we say something is “observed,” what has occurred is the local resolution of coherence under constraint,
-
The observer is not detecting a fact but participating in a field-level adjustment: a new configuration of potential has been made coherent,
-
What is observed is not a pre-given world, but a jointly enacted actuality, brought into being by the coordinated constraints of system, measurement, and interpretive frame.
5. Knowledge as Situated Participation
-
In a relational framework, knowledge is not the mapping of an independent world, but the construal of relational potential from a particular standpoint,
-
There is no “view from nowhere” — only locally enacted perspectives that reveal aspects of the field by the way they cut it,
-
Observation, then, is not epistemically passive or metaphysically magical — it is ontologically participatory.
Closing
The observer in quantum theory has long seemed both essential and elusive — the very act of measurement shapes what is real, and yet the observer is nowhere to be found in the formalism. But perhaps this is not a problem to be solved, but a sign of a deeper shift in perspective.
From a relational standpoint, the observer is not a who, but a how — a mode of construal, a perspectival act of actualisation within a field of structured potential. There is no subject-object divide, no metaphysical collapse, no hidden observer outside the world. There is only relational resolution — and the reality it makes possible.
In the next post, we’ll turn to the so-called “problem of decoherence” — and reconsider what it means for quantum systems to appear classical under relational constraints.
No comments:
Post a Comment