The Readiness Cut in Quantum Theory: How the Inclination/Ability Distinction Clarifies the Quantum World: 1 The Quantum Confusion: How Physics Lost the Cut

Physics inherited its quantum paradoxes for one simple reason:

it tried to describe two fundamentally different kinds of potential using one mathematical object.

That object is the wavefunction, and for nearly a century physicists have asked it to do everything:

• encode “all possible outcomes”

• track dynamical evolution

• account for interference

• explain collapse

• model measurement

• represent knowledge

• represent reality

• handle entanglement

• behave locally

• behave nonlocally

• update under decoherence

• yet still deliver determinate outcomes

This is an impossible task — not because the theory is wrong, but because the ontology is miscut.

Quantum theory was built without distinguishing two structurally incompatible notions of potential:

1. Inclination — endogenous structure; the system’s internal readiness-to-tend, defined by its own relational organisation.

2. Ability — exogenous coherence; the environmental, contextual, and apparatus-imposed constraints that determine what can be actualised.

When quantum mechanics is written purely in terms of the wavefunction, inclination and ability are collapsed into one symbol, and the consequences are catastrophic.

1. The Original Confusion: Wavefunction as Everything

The Schrödinger equation gives you the unitary evolution of ψ — and this is pure inclination.

It tracks how the system’s internal structure shifts as a function of its own potential.

But the same function ψ is also expected to ‘collapse’ when a measurement occurs — and this is an ability phenomenon.

The collapse happens because the environment imposes coherence constraints that the inclination cannot violate.

Physics forced both roles — internal structure and external constraint — into the same formal object.

This is the seed of the quantum confusion.

2. Why the Conflation Produces Paradox

Every major quantum ‘paradox’ arises from this one mistake:

The measurement problem

If ψ represents both inclination and ability, measurement appears to break the laws that govern ψ.

Because ψ-before (pure inclination) and ψ-after (inclination + ability) cannot be the same kind of object.

Superposition vs outcome

Superposition is a structure of inclination; outcomes are structures of ability.

As long as these are fused, you’ll ask: How does a superposition become one outcome?

— a nonsensical question born of the wrong cut.

Nonlocality

Entanglement is a shared inclination space across systems; measurement brings in local ability constraints.

The paradox disappears once the two roles are separated.

Schrödinger’s cat

The cat is a system whose ability-state (alive/dead) cannot be coherently described by the inclination of the quantum trigger.

The paradox arises from forcing cross-scale abilities into the inclination formalism.

Decoherence

Decoherence reshapes ability, not inclination.

But because ψ is made to represent both, decoherence looks like a mysterious partial collapse.

The pattern is perfectly consistent:

every paradox is a symptom of treating inclination and ability as if they were the same kind of potential.

3. The Correct Relational Cut

Once we separate them, quantum phenomena become intelligible:

• ψ is not the system’s ability to produce outcomes.

• ψ is not the environment’s capacity to constrain the system.

• ψ is not a description of knowledge, uncertainty, or possibility in the abstract.

ψ is simply:

The structured inclination of the system: its internal readiness-to-tend, independent of external constraints.

Ability is introduced by:

• the measurement setup

• decohering environment

• boundary conditions

• apparatus design

• the macroscopic embedding of the system

When the two are combined under a relational cut, we obtain an actualisation event — not a collapse.

4. Why Quantum Theory Began With the Wrong Cut

Historically, physics lacked a relational ontology.

It was assumed that:

• systems have states,

• observers interact with states,

• the world evolves in time,

• measurement extracts a fact.

But quantum behaviour rejected this classical template.

Instead of reconsidering the ontology, physicists modified the mathematics while leaving the metaphysics untouched.

The result was a theory where the central mathematical object had to serve contradictory metaphysical roles.

5. Why Readiness Gives Us the Right Cut

Under the readiness framework:

• Inclination is endogenous (category-internal structure).

• Ability is exogenous (coherence morphisms imposed by context).

• Actualisation is the relational cut selecting a morphism consistent with both.

Quantum physics suddenly becomes clear, non-paradoxical, and structurally meaningful.