In standard quantum theory, the wavefunction collapse is treated as a sudden, discontinuous jump:
-
A system evolves smoothly according to the Schrödinger equation,
-
Then, upon measurement, the wavefunction “collapses” to a definite state,
-
The process is instantaneous and non-unitary — and fundamentally unlike the rest of physics.
This discontinuity is not explained — it is posited.
And this move imports an unstated assumption:
That observation introduces something ontologically distinct from physical process.
From a relational standpoint, however, collapse is not a metaphysical event.
It is a perspectival shift — a reorganisation of constraint that defines a new actuality within the relational field.
1. The Ontological Cost of Collapse
Standard interpretations treat collapse as:
-
A necessary but inexplicable update to the system,
-
Triggered by “measurement” — but with no consensus on what counts as a measurement,
-
Outside the formal dynamics of the theory.
The result is a bifurcated ontology:
Unitary evolution describes how systems behave — until an observer intervenes.
This sharp break between process and event fractures the theory’s coherence.
It installs a metaphysical discontinuity where none is warranted.
2. What Collapses?
If we ask what exactly collapses, the answer is the wavefunction — a mathematical expression of possible outcomes.
But in relational terms, the wavefunction is not a physical object.
It is a representation of potential under constraint — a model of what may be actualised within a given configuration.
Collapse, then, is not a change in the system,
but a shift in the observer-system relation — a new construal.
The system hasn’t jumped.
The cut has shifted.
What was indeterminate from one vantage is now determinate from another.
3. Measurement Revisited
Measurement is not a mysterious external intervention.
It is the introduction of a constraint that forces resolution along a particular dimension.
From this view:
-
There is no ontological dualism between system and observer,
-
The “collapse” is the outcome of a realignment within the relational topology,
-
The selection is not random, but conditioned — shaped by the structure of constraints present at the moment of interaction.
The apparent discontinuity is not a break in nature.
It is a perspectival effect of how systems become defined within a web of relations.
4. No Collapse, Only Actualisation
In a relational ontology, there is no collapse.
There is only actualisation — the transition from potential to event under constraint.
Just as:
-
A ripple becomes a wave when pressure aligns across a fluid medium,
-
A meaning becomes an utterance when context prompts articulation,
So too:
A quantum potential becomes an outcome when the relational conditions resolve it.
Collapse is merely the name we give to this resolution when viewed from a classical, object-based frame.
5. Relational Definition
We might say:
Wavefunction collapse is a misdescription of systemic reconfiguration —
a projection of classical expectation onto relational transformation.
What appears as sudden and inexplicable is, in fact, the most natural consequence of actualisation in a system of interdependent affordances.
There is no need for mystical rupture.
Just a shift in how we define what counts as a “thing.”
Closing
Collapse is not a window into quantum weirdness.
It is a mirror reflecting our misplaced metaphors.
The world does not collapse into reality.
It reconfigures into coherence.
In the next post, we will address the so-called “measurement problem” — and ask whether the problem lies with measurement, or with the metaphysical baggage smuggled in with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment