After all we’ve said, it may seem odd to ask. But let’s pause and ask it directly:
In physics, the term appears deceptively clear. A particle, a field, a collection of degrees of freedom governed by the formalism of quantum mechanics — this is what is usually meant.
But from the standpoint of relational ontology, this question must be reframed. If systems are not given but cut — if they are not absolute but perspectival — then a quantum system is not a thing in itself. It is a construal of potential, actualised within a particular configuration of relation.
1. The Myth of the Isolated System
The standard model of quantum theory presupposes that systems can be isolated:
-
We draw a boundary,
-
We define a state space,
-
We write down a Hamiltonian.
But this presupposes that system is an objective category. In truth:
There is no system without a cut.And no cut without a perspective.
What we call a “system” is never intrinsic — it is how a field of potential is construed under a particular relational configuration.
2. The Role of the Cut
In relational ontology, there is no meaningful distinction between:
-
“A system exists,” and
-
“A system is construed to cohere across a cut.”
This means:
-
The system is not what is inside the cut,
-
The system is the cut — or more precisely, the coherence that emerges through the cut.
A quantum system, then, is not a region of the universe — it is a coherent construal within the structure of potentialities, from which some phenomena may be actualised.
3. From Object to Interface
What we conventionally think of as a quantum object — an electron, say — is not an entity. It is the interface through which certain construals can be enacted.
For example:
-
The same potential may be construed as a particle in one configuration,
-
As a wave in another,
-
As entangled with another “system” in yet another.
There is no underlying object that carries these identities. The “system” is a perspectival interface, not an ontological core.
4. Systems Without Boundaries
In quantum field theory — and especially in approaches like algebraic QFT or category-theoretic models — the notion of a well-defined system becomes even more tenuous. Fields do not respect rigid boundaries; they are relational patterns of potential that admit construals as if they were systems.
But from a relational perspective:
A system is any region of potential that can be construed as coherent from a particular standpoint.
There is no privileged level of reality at which the “true” systems live. There are only different ways of drawing coherence within a web of relational possibility.
5. What Survives the Cut?
If this is right, then asking “what is a quantum system?” becomes a kind of category error. It assumes that the system precedes the cut. But in relational ontology:
-
The cut constitutes the system,
-
The coherence across the cut defines its identity,
-
The quantum nature of the system arises not from what it is, but from how it is related.
Put differently: the quantum is not a class of things. It is a modality of construal — one that treats potential as real, and coherence as emergent through relation.
Closing
So what is a quantum system?
It is not a thing, but a perspective.Not a part of the world, but a way of drawing coherence within the world’s relational potential.
This is why every attempt to find “the smallest building blocks” misfires. The world is not built from parts. It is enacted through cuts — and each cut brings a different coherence into view.
In the next post, we’ll explore what all this means for entanglement — and why, from a relational perspective, entanglement is not a spooky connection between particles, but a perspectival signature of coherence across a cut.
No comments:
Post a Comment