Let us now confront two closely linked pillars of quantum theory through the prism of our relational ontology:
Entanglement: non-separable relational potential
The Measurement Problem: the paradox of potential becoming instance
🔗 1. Entanglement: Non-Separable Relational Potential
In standard quantum mechanics:
Entangled particles exhibit non-local correlations — the outcome of measuring one immediately determines the outcome of the other, even across vast distances.
The combined system is described by a single wavefunction, not reducible to separate states for each particle.
Now, in our ontology:
a. Entanglement is not spooky action at a distance, but structured relational potential
The entangled system is a single structure of potential.It is not two particles with hidden properties, but one relational field of possible co-instantiations.
There are no “individual particles” with definite but unknown states.
There is only a field of possible instances — with correlated structure.
Once one instance is actualised (e.g. spin-up), the potential for the other is transformed (to spin-down).
This is not causality in the material order, but exclusion in the relational structure of potential.
So entanglement becomes:
A higher-order potentiality that resists decomposition into independent potentials.
This echoes our semiotic theory:
Like systems that are co-instantiated (e.g. Theme and Mood), entangled potentials are systemically related — one cannot be actualised without co-defining the other.
b. Non-locality is a misframing
Entanglement seems "non-local" only if one assumes space and time are pre-existing dimensions across which particles are distributed.
But in our ontology:
Space and time are dimensions of instances, not of potential.
So before instantiation, it is meaningless to say the particles are “far apart.”
Entanglement is therefore:
A structure of potential that does not resolve into spatially distributed instances until observation.
And when observation occurs:
It does not transmit information between already-separated instances.
It actualises a configuration — a co-instantiation — that was always structured as a whole.
🎭 2. The Measurement Problem: Potential Becoming Instance
The traditional measurement problem is:
Why and how does a wavefunction — which evolves deterministically — collapse into a definite state upon observation?
What counts as a measurement? What causes collapse?
Our ontology has a natural response:
a. There is no mystery to collapse — it is actualisation
The wavefunction is the construal of potential.Observation is the construal of an instance.
There is no problem of "collapse" if we reject the reification of potential as if it were a thing-in-itself.
Instead:
The wavefunction expresses a relational structure of potential.
A measurement is not a process within the system, but the event of actualisation of a relation between system and observer-apparatus field.
So:
Collapse is the material transformation of structured potential into instance, always relational and temporally ordered.
There is no need for an external "conscious observer" in any Cartesian sense:
The measuring apparatus is already part of the relational field.
Its structure (what it is capable of instantiating) selects which dimension of potential can be actualised.
Just as in SFL:
A system (e.g. MOOD) does not pre-exist instances of speech acts.
It is realised and transformed through selection, actualisation, and repetition.
b. Superposition is a misinterpretation of potential
Instead of saying the particle "is in many states at once," we say:
The particle is not in any state until an instance is actualised.The wavefunction is not a list of states the particle occupies — it is the field of structured potential for actualisation.
Measurement does not find a state — it produces an instance, via a relation in a particular configuration of space, time, and system.
🧭 Summary: Entanglement and Measurement in Relational Ontology
| Quantum Concept | Relational Ontology Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Entanglement | A single, indivisible field of structured potential |
| “Spooky action” | Misreading of relational co-instantiation as causal signal |
| Non-locality | Only meaningful after instantiation; space is a dimension of the instance |
| Superposition | A structure of mutually exclusive but co-possible potentialities |
| Measurement | Actualisation of an instance through a relational field |
| Collapse | Transformation of potential into instance via relational actualisation |
No comments:
Post a Comment