Quantum entanglement has long been taken as the signature of quantum "weirdness." Two particles, once entangled, seem to share information instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are. Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance.” Today, entanglement underpins quantum computing, teleportation, and encryption — yet its ontological status remains unresolved.
Is entanglement a real connection across space?A failure of locality?A sign that particles share hidden variables?
Each answer attempts to force a relational phenomenon into a substance-based frame. This leads to paradox.
A relational ontology dissolves the problem by reframing the question:
Entanglement is not a mysterious link between parts. It is the appearance of locality within a deeper, indivisible coherence.
There are no separate “particles” being connected. There is only a single system undergoing structured actualisation — what appears as two parts is the result of a particular construal.
1. Against the “Spooky” Metaphor
-
The dominant metaphor of entanglement is causal connection across space,
-
This presumes separate entities with defined positions and states,
-
But entangled systems violate this assumption: measurement outcomes are not locally determined,
-
Relational view:
The system is not composed of interacting parts. It is a single, coherent whole being construed as separable.
The “spookiness” vanishes once we stop projecting spatial individuation onto what is ontologically prior.
2. Measurement and the Cut
-
In standard accounts, measurement of one particle “collapses” the entangled state,
-
But this assumes the system was separable all along — a contradiction,
-
Relationally:
Measurement imposes a perspectival cut on a non-separable field.
It does not “change” the distant particle. It reconfigures the coherence of the whole — and the observed correlations reflect this reorganised potential.
3. No Hidden Variables, No Instant Messaging
-
Bohmian mechanics posits hidden variables that determine the correlated outcomes,
-
But this reintroduces determinism at the cost of nonlocality,
-
Relational ontology requires no such add-ons:
Entangled correlations are not caused by hidden influences. They are expressions of mutual constraint within a system that was never divided.
There is nothing travelling between parts. There are no parts.
4. Topology, Not Geometry
-
Entanglement challenges our intuitive sense of spatial separation,
-
The correlations appear to “jump” across distance,
-
But space itself is not fundamental — it is an emergent construal,
-
Therefore:
Entanglement reflects topological coherence in the system’s potential — not geometric distance between objects.
It is not about signals through space, but about how potential resolves in the presence of relational constraints.
5. System as Whole, Not Aggregate
-
In classical physics, systems are built from parts,
-
But in quantum mechanics, the whole defines the parts — not the reverse,
-
This reverses the ontological order:
What we call “particles” are local perspectives within a globally coherent potential. Entanglement is not between them — it is them.
That is, the entangled relation is the thing we call “two particles” — not something additional between them.
Relational Definition
We might say:
Entanglement is a manifestation of systemic coherence that cannot be decomposed into part-whole interactions. It reflects the indivisibility of potential prior to any construal.
It is not an interaction or a connection — it is a relational topology made legible under constraint.
Closing
Entanglement does not reveal something “nonlocal” hiding beneath physics. It reveals the limitations of trying to describe reality in terms of independently existing parts.
From a relational perspective, entanglement is not a problem — it is the clearest evidence we have that reality is not made of things, but of constrained potential undergoing actualisation.
In the next post, we will examine the myth of the particle — and why the insistence on particulate ontology continues to mislead quantum thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment