Potential, Probability, and the Relational Turn: VI Quantum Mechanics and Readiness

In the previous post, we situated probability in the meta-phenomenal stratum: a measure of epistemic uncertainty about the ontic field of readiness.

Now we turn to quantum mechanics, where this distinction becomes both vivid and transformative.

---

1. The wavefunction as readiness

Traditionally, the wavefunction is treated as a probability amplitude, encoding the likelihood of various measurement outcomes.

From a relational ontology perspective, the wavefunction instead encodes readiness: the system’s latent capacities and inclinations, the ontic dispositions that define what can actualise.

• Superpositions are not “simultaneously real probabilities” but fields of potential alignment.

• Measurement is a perspectival cut, selecting a local alignment from the field.

• Collapse is not ontic; it is the event of actualisation from readiness, as observed from a particular perspective.

---

2. Heisenberg uncertainty and epistemic limits

The uncertainty principle is often interpreted ontologically: the world is inherently indeterminate.

Relationally, it is epistemic: it quantifies the limits of our knowledge about the field of readiness.

• Position and momentum are complementary observables, each probing different aspects of readiness.

• The principle does not restrict potential itself; it restricts what can be known simultaneously about potential.

This resolves the seeming paradox of indeterminacy without appealing to observer-created reality or probabilistic ontology.

---

3. Superposition as dispositional topology

A system in superposition represents a network of inclinations and abilities, not a set of competing probabilities:

• Ability: structural constraints that define possible alignments.

• Inclination: directional tendencies shaping the likelihood of particular actualisations.

Actualisation occurs when these dispositions cohere locally under a perspectival cut, producing a specific measurement outcome.

---

4. Entanglement and relational alignment

Entanglement, often mystified as “spooky action at a distance,” is naturally intelligible in relational terms:

• Entangled systems share a field of readiness, whose inclinations are co-structured.

• Local cuts yield correlated outcomes not because of instantaneous signals, but because the dispositional topology already aligns tendencies across the field.

No signal needs to travel; correlation is a natural feature of relational potential.

---

5. Reframing quantum mechanics

Viewed through the lens of relational ontology:

1. Potential = readiness: ontic field of capacities and inclinations.

2. Probability = epistemic uncertainty: our reflection on which alignments will actualise.

3. Measurement = perspectival actualisation: a local cut of readiness into a coherent instance.

4. Superposition = dispositional network: inclinations and abilities exist in relational coherence, not as multiple simultaneous worlds.

5. Entanglement = relational alignment: correlations arise from shared fields of readiness.

This framework dissolves longstanding conceptual confusions about collapse, indeterminacy, and non-locality.

---

6. Preview of Part VII

Next, we will explore recursive potential and systemic alignment: how readiness evolves over time, how actualisations modify the field, and how local and large-scale patterns of alignment interact across relational systems.

We will see how quantum dynamics, symbolic systems, and human agency all instantiate recursive modulation of potential.