Probability sits at the heart of quantum theory. We are told that we cannot predict individual outcomes — only the statistical distribution of many. But what does this really mean? Is quantum probability simply a placeholder for our ignorance, as it is in classical statistics? Or does it signal something deeper?
From a relational ontology, probability is not ignorance about a determinate state. It is a measure of how constrained the system is toward actualisation. It tells us where — and how readily — potential might resolve into actuality, given a particular configuration of relation.
1. Classical Probability: Hidden Certainty
In classical frameworks:
-
Probability arises when we lack full knowledge of a system’s state,
-
The system itself is fully determined — we just don’t know all the variables,
-
In principle, certainty is always possible (Laplace’s demon knows all).
This kind of probability is epistemic: a tool for managing uncertainty about determinate states.
2. Quantum Probability: No Hidden State
Quantum theory challenges this picture:
-
Probabilities are fundamental: they describe what can happen, not just what we don’t know,
-
No hidden variables are required (or allowed, in standard interpretations),
-
The system isn’t “really” in one state or another — it is in a superposition of potentialities until actualised.
From a relational perspective, this isn't a defect of our knowledge. It's a description of the ontological structure of becoming.
3. Probability as Relational Tension
In relational terms:
Probability is not a mask for ignorance.It is a profile of constraint — a map of how potential is distributed across possible actualisations.
-
High probability means the system is highly disposed toward a particular coherence,
-
Low probability signals a configuration that is less readily actualised,
-
These probabilities are not inside particles — they are features of the whole relational configuration, including constraints, affordances, and observer coupling.
The wavefunction does not describe what is. It expresses the geometry of potential across the system as a whole.
4. Collapse Revisited
This changes how we think about wavefunction collapse:
-
It is not the random realisation of a pre-selected possibility,
-
It is the actualisation of one coherence under constraint, from within a structured field of tension,
-
The “probability” reflects how inclined the system was toward that coherence, given its whole configuration.
So when an outcome occurs, we’re not watching dice roll — we’re seeing which path the system could stably resolve through, given its specific relational conditions.
5. Implications
Reframing probability this way:
-
Rescues it from mysticism — it’s not magic or metaphysical fuzziness,
-
Frees it from determinism — it’s not a shadow of hidden facts,
-
Grounds it in systemic tension — it is how the world strains toward coherence.
In this light, uncertainty is not a gap in knowledge, but a feature of indeterminate potential. It reflects the world’s openness to actualisation under evolving constraint.
Closing
In the relational ontology:
Probability is not about ignorance of a hidden state.It is about the distribution of possible coherences before the cut.
It is the system telling us, not what is most likely to be, but what is most ready to become.
In the next post, we’ll turn to a related question: if probability isn’t about ignorance, then what is information?
No comments:
Post a Comment