In classical science, measurement is often understood as a passive reading of an independent reality. The world exists with determinate properties; we simply uncover them using the right instruments. Even in quantum theory, measurement is typically framed as a process that “reveals” a pre-existing value — perhaps obscured by probability, but nonetheless there.
But in a relational ontology, measurement is not revelation. It is actualisation.
There is no independent state waiting to be uncovered. What we call measurement is the cutting of potential — the selection of a coherent configuration from a field of relational affordances, under the constraints imposed by the measuring system itself.
1. The Classical Ideal: Passive Access to Reality
In the classical model:
-
Properties exist independently of whether we observe them,
-
Instruments ideally access these properties without influencing them,
-
Measurement is an epistemic act: we learn something about a world already there.
Even where classical realism falters (e.g., due to practical limits of precision), the assumption remains: truth precedes measurement.
2. The Quantum Challenge: Measurement as Disruption
Quantum theory unsettles this ideal:
-
Measurement is invasive — it affects the system,
-
The outcome cannot be predicted deterministically,
-
Observables do not have well-defined values until measured.
But these facts are often treated as epistemological quirks of a deeper reality — as if the particle had a position, but we just can’t know it without disturbing it.
In contrast, a relational view takes this challenge ontologically: there is no hidden state. There is only potential actualising under constraint.
3. Relational Account: Measurement as Punctualisation
In a relational ontology:
Measurement is not a window onto the world — it is a world-making event.
-
Before measurement, there is not an object with unknown properties, but a field of affordances,
-
Measurement configures this field: it imposes a boundary condition,
-
What emerges is not discovered, but co-enacted — a local coherence shaped by the system-plus-apparatus-plus-context.
This is not epistemic humility. It is ontological precision: reality does not pre-exist the measuring cut; it comes into being with it.
4. Decoherence Revisited
Even decoherence — often invoked to explain how classical outcomes emerge — is better reframed relationally:
-
Decoherence is not the environment “collapsing” the wavefunction,
-
It is the system settling into local coherence under constraint,
-
Measurement is not the moment we find the outcome — it is the configuration of that outcome.
Thus, the apparatus is not a neutral observer. It is a structural participant in the event of actualisation.
5. Measurement as Constraint, Not Insight
We can now invert the classical assumption:
Measurement does not uncover what is.It conditions what can be.
To measure is to impose a relational cut — a constraint that locally resolves potential. The value obtained is not a pre-existing fact, but the outcome of this resolution.
Every measurement is thus a kind of ontological punctuation — a delimiting act that stabilises one version of coherence at the exclusion of others.
Closing
In the relational view:
Measurement is not epistemology applied to physics.It is ontology enacted through constraint.
This reframing alters our basic metaphors:
-
From “reading values” to “selecting possibilities”,
-
From “disturbing the system” to “co-constituting the event”,
-
From “observer-independent truth” to observer-participatory actuality.
In the next post, we’ll explore what this implies for the status of probability in quantum theory — and whether uncertainty is a measure of ignorance or of something deeper.
No comments:
Post a Comment