Saturday, 29 November 2025

Bridging the Two Potentials: Quantum Readiness and Relativistic Readiness in a Single Relational Framework

In which wavefunction and spacetime, inclination and ability, endogenous and exogenous potential, become two coordinated aspects of a single readiness field — without collapse, contradiction, or compromise.


1. The Problem Everyone Inherits

Modern physics lives on a knife-edge between two incompatible pictures of potential:

  • Quantum theory gives us a wavefunction or quantum field — a highly articulated internal potential, rich in endogenous inclination.

  • Relativity gives us a spacetime metric and curvature — a field of external constraints shaping how events can actualise.

Historically, these are taken to be different kinds of structures living in different ontological registers.

Quantum potential is probabilistic and superpositional.
Relativistic potential is geometric and deterministic.
They do not speak the same language.
And attempts to unify them usually import representational narratives that only further entrench the split.

Our readiness framework collapses this divide without forcing homogenisation.


2. The Key Insight: Two Faces of One Readiness Field

In our framework, “readiness” has two sides:

  1. Inclination — endogenous pressure, internal coherence, self-driven potential.

  2. Ability — exogenous constraint, external coherence, ambient conditioning of potential.

This makes the division between quantum and relativity look almost embarrassingly artificial:

  • Quantum theory = the endogenous face of readiness
    (internal morphism-pressure of a system)

  • Relativity = the exogenous face of readiness
    (the ability-structure governing which morphisms are coherent in a global field)

These are not two substances; they are two directions of structure in the same relational potential.

Once seen, it cannot be unseen.


3. Reinterpreting the Wavefunction

The wavefunction (or quantum field) now becomes:

The system’s internal inclination structure — its profile of endogenous morphism-pressure.

  • Superposition = multiple viable inclinations coexisting as potential morphisms.

  • Amplitudes = intensities of inclination.

  • Phase relations = structural coherence within the inclination network.

  • Unitary evolution = stable propagation of this internal structure.

All without ontology of “states inside a Hilbert space.”
We are dealing with patterned readiness, not representational vectors.


4. Reinterpreting the Relativistic Field

Conversely, spacetime curvature and the metric profile are:

the exogenous ability-conditions imposed on all systems — the global coherence rules for morphism selection.

  • Curvature = deformation in external constraints.

  • Lorentz structure = invariants of the ability-field.

  • Geodesics = minimal interference pathways through the ability-structure.

  • Stress–energy = intensities of inclination that co-determine ability conditions.

Again, no background geometry.
Only global constraints modulating readiness.

Quantum and relativistic potentials differ only in orientation, not in kind.


5. The Cut That Unifies Them: Actualisation as Joint Constraint

An event — in relational ontology — is always a cut through potential.

But that potential has two sides:

  • what the system is inclined to do

  • what the world allows to be coherently done

Thus:

Actualisation = the intersection of endogenous inclination and exogenous ability.

This gives us a relational analogue of the Born rule without probabilities and without measurement mystique:

The actualised morphism is the one simultaneously supported by internal readiness and not prohibited by external readiness.

It is not random.
It is not determined.
It is selected at the nexus of two readiness structures.

Quantum “measurement” is simply the name physics gives to moments where the two readiness fields intersect sharply enough for a determinate cut to form.

There is no classical/quantum divide — only interactions between inclination-structures and ability-structures.


6. Why This Solves the Old Tensions

(1) No collapse problem

Collapse was always an artefact of treating the wavefunction representationally.

If the wavefunction = inclination structure, then:

  • when constraints shift (via coupling to an ability-field),

  • the structure of viable morphisms also shifts,

  • and one morphism becomes actualised.

No collapse; just cut-selection.

(2) No measurement problem

The “measurement device” is simply an exogenous ability-structure with enormous coherence.

Its ability-constraints dominate the intersection, forcing a stable cut.

(3) No incompatibility between quantum locality and relativistic locality

Quantum nonlocality expresses inclination-structure coherence across a system.
Relativistic locality expresses ability-structure invariance within a global field.

They govern different aspects of readiness and do not clash.

Superluminal signalling is impossible because:

  • inclination structures propagate unitarily with internal invariants,

  • ability structures forbid any morphism that violates Lorentz-consistent coherence.

Nothing spooky is needed.

(4) No need for a background spacetime

The ability field is perspectival, not absolute.
It is the global readiness profile that constrains actualisation.


7. Category Theory as the Integration Tool

This is where the category-theoretic architecture shows its power.

  • Quantum inclination = an internal category structured by its morphisms of possible evolution.

  • Relativistic ability = a functorial external category imposing constraints on the internal one.

  • Actualisation = a natural transformation between the structured potentials, selecting viable morphisms.

This turns the quantum–relativity relation into:

A categorical coupling between endogenous and exogenous readiness.

No merger required.
Only alignment.


8. Final Synthesis: One Potential, Two Faces, One Cut

We can now summarise in a single stroke:

  • Quantum theory = how a system leans

  • Relativity = how the world lets it move

  • Category theory = how both readiness structures are organised

  • Relational ontology = what a cut is and how an event is actualised

Everything fits because everything is relational potential.

There was never a split between quantum and relativistic domains.
Only a split in how physics construed two sides of readiness.

Once readiness becomes the central concept, the unity is immediate.

No comments:

Post a Comment