Entanglement as Coherence Across a Cut

Entanglement is often said to be the defining feature of quantum theory — the thing that distinguishes it most sharply from classical physics. And indeed, from the standard perspective, it seems bizarre: two particles, separated in space, can behave as if they share a hidden connection, instantly reflecting each other’s states. Einstein famously called this “spooky action at a distance.”

But from the standpoint of relational ontology, this picture is deeply misleading. There are no spooky forces. No hidden signals. And — perhaps most radically — no independent particles to begin with.

Entanglement is not a property of things. It is a signature of coherence across a cut.

---

1. The Fallacy of Particle Ontology

Let’s begin by setting aside the idea that quantum systems are made of particles with internal states.

That picture — of isolated objects carrying entangled properties — is a holdover from a classical worldview. It assumes:

• Systems are in space,

• Properties belong to systems,

• Measurement reveals pre-existing values.

But none of these assumptions survive quantum theory. Instead:

• Systems are enacted through construals,

• Properties are relations,

• Measurement constitutes a phenomenon across a cut.

If we abandon the myth of independent particles, then entanglement no longer demands a “mechanism.” It simply reflects how possibilities are configured relationally.

---

2. A Signature of Non-Separability

Entanglement is typically defined via the formalism: a state is entangled if it cannot be written as a product of subsystem states. But this is not a statement about objective ontology — it is a statement about how coherence is distributed relative to a cut.

That is: entanglement says…

This construal of the world does not permit a decomposition into independent local subsystems.

It is a perspectival diagnosis. The system appears indivisible from this standpoint, given this cut.

In other words:

• Entanglement marks the failure of separability across a construal.

• It does not reflect “nonlocal influence” between parts.

• It reflects the co-emergence of coherence across the field of potentiality.

---

3. The Cut Constitutes the Entanglement

Because a cut defines what counts as a “system,” it also defines what counts as “entanglement.” The same field of potential may appear entangled or not, depending on how it is construed.

For example:

• Consider a field construed as two particles. Entanglement may appear.

• Construe it instead as a single extended system. The entanglement disappears.

Thus:

Entanglement is not an absolute feature of the world.

It is a perspectival artefact of how we impose a boundary.

This is why it makes no sense to ask “what really is entangled?”

There is no “reality” beneath the construal.

There is only the structure of potential — and the coherences that emerge across different cuts.

---

4. Entanglement as Relational Possibility

Seen this way, entanglement becomes a relation between potentialities, not a bond between entities.

The entangled state doesn’t say:

"These two particles influence each other."

It says:

"The space of actualisable phenomena cannot be factorised."

This is a subtle but profound shift.

We move from thinking of entanglement as a connection between things

→ to understanding it as a coherence of possibility across a perspectival boundary.

---

5. Locality Reframed

Does this mean locality is violated? Not at all — but we must be precise.

• Classical locality assumes that events are independent unless connected by a signal.

• But if systems are not fundamental — if the cut defines the system — then the space-time separation of “parts” is not foundational either.

What we call “nonlocal” behaviour is not action across space, but coherent construal within a relational whole.

There is no influence because there are no separate systems to influence each other.

There is only one coherent construal, expressed across a cut.

---

Closing

Entanglement is not weird. What’s weird is that we ever thought the world was made of parts to begin with.

From a relational standpoint:

• There are no parts without a cut.

• There is no entanglement without a perspective.

• And there is no puzzle once we recognise that construal is constitutive.

In the next post, we’ll explore how this insight reshapes our understanding of measurement — not as the revelation of value, but as the actualisation of meaning within a perspectival cut.