The wavefunction, ψ, is central to quantum mechanics. It encodes all that can be said about a system, evolves according to Schrödinger’s equation, and (somehow) yields probabilities upon measurement.
But what is the wavefunction?
Is it a real, physical field? A statistical tool? A representation of knowledge? A disposition? Interpretations diverge wildly, and each stumbles on the same obstacle: how to explain a formal structure that behaves like a thing, but doesn’t correspond to anything directly observable.
In a relational ontology, this confusion is diagnostic.
The wavefunction is not a hidden reality or a wave in space. It is a relational encoding of constrained potential — a theory of what may be, not a statement of what is.
It is not an entity. It is the shape of affordance across a field of relation.
1. From Substance to Structure
-
In realist interpretations, the wavefunction is a field over configuration space — a highly abstract multidimensional object,
-
But this reifies the formalism, making it into a thing-in-itself,
-
A relational approach reframes it:
The wavefunction is not a physical object but a formal articulation of systemic constraint — a structured encoding of possible actualisations.
It does not describe what exists, but what is afforded by the topology of relation.
2. Probability and Potential
-
ψ is often said to yield probabilities via the Born rule: |ψ|² gives the likelihood of outcomes,
-
But what kind of probability is this? Not classical ignorance, and not frequentist chance,
-
Relationally:
It encodes the relative stability of different construals under current constraints.
It is not uncertainty about a hidden state, but a distribution over the field’s modal profile — how potential is shaped.
3. No Configuration Space, No Collapse
-
The formal structure of ψ often implies a reality in configuration space — not physical space,
-
But this leads to ontological problems: is the universe a wavefunction in 3N dimensions?
-
In relational terms:
ψ is not spatial at all. It does not live in a place, because it is not a thing — it’s a theory of where and how construals can be resolved.
The "collapse" of ψ is not physical discontinuity. It is the selection of one construal path within the system’s potential.
4. Dynamics Without Ontology
-
Schrödinger’s equation gives ψ’s evolution. But what is evolving?
-
If ψ is not a physical object, then there is no need to picture it "changing in time",
-
Instead:
ψ evolves as a shifting theory of potential — a relational recalibration of what affordances are possible under the system’s unfolding constraints.
The evolution is not of a wave, but of a structure of coherence within the system.
5. Interpretive Impasse Dissolved
-
The multiplicity of quantum interpretations (Copenhagen, many-worlds, Bohmian, epistemic) each assigns a different ontological status to ψ,
-
But all assume ψ must refer to something that exists in a familiar sense,
-
The relational approach reframes this entirely:
ψ refers not to a thing but to a modal architecture — a second-order field of constraint within which events may become.
It is not a veil over hidden variables. It is the map of what may be made actual under constraint.
Relational Definition
We might say:
The wavefunction is a systemic encoding of structured potential — a construal of what transitions are possible, given the constraints of the current field.
It is not a description of being, but a dynamic theory of affordance.
Closing
The wavefunction has long been the symbol of quantum mystery — a ghostly field, both present and elusive. But its paradoxes only arise when we assume it must be a thing.
Reimagined relationally, ψ becomes clear: not a picture of what is, but a system’s internal model of what it may become. Not a wave in space, but a logic of transition — a coherence across potential.
In the next post, we’ll examine the role of the observer — not as a subject separate from the system, but as an instance of perspective within a relational cut.
No comments:
Post a Comment