The Readiness Cut in Quantum Theory: How the Inclination/Ability Distinction Clarifies the Quantum World: 5 The Classic Quantum Paradoxes Re-Analysed Under the Readiness Architecture

The previous post exposed the root assumption driving every quantum paradox:

the conflation of internal structure (inclination) with external constraint (ability).

Here we examine the canonical paradoxes one by one, showing how each dissolves immediately when the readiness cut is applied.

No additional physics is needed.

Only a clearer construal of potential.

---

1. Wave–Particle Duality

The apparent paradox

A quantum system “acts like a wave” in some contexts and “acts like a particle” in others.

How can it be both?

The readiness resolution

• Inclination (internal potential) supports interference.
  This is the cohesive internal organisation of possible morphisms.

• Ability (external constraint) suppresses or enables interference.
  Any which-path device changes the morphism availability.

Duality = the system’s inclination encounters two different ability structures.

No contradiction.

No dual nature.

Just relational readiness.

---

2. Schrödinger’s Cat

The apparent paradox

The cat is “both alive and dead” until observed.

The readiness resolution

A superposition describes inclination — the internal structuring of possible transitions in the quantum subsystem.

The cat’s actual viability is governed by ability — external constraints at macroscopic scale.

Quantum inclination never governs macroscopic ability.

The cat is not “both.”

Its internal micro-dynamics are simply inclining toward multiple possibilities, but its macroscopic ability structure is already determinate.

The whole paradox arises from treating inclination as if it dictated ability.

---

3. Wigner’s Friend

The apparent paradox

Two observers assign incompatible states to the same system.

The readiness resolution

Each observer occupies a different ability configuration — a different external constraint structure.

Inclination is always relative to ability.

Thus each observer construes a different readiness profile; nothing requires them to coincide.

No contradiction arises unless one assumes ability is universal.

But it is not — and never was.

---

4. Delayed Choice

The apparent paradox

A measurement made later seems to affect what “really happened” earlier.

The readiness resolution

Inclination encodes the internal coherence available up to the moment of interaction.

Ability determines the morphisms admissible at the moment of actualisation.

Changing ability later changes what morphisms are admissible at the time of the cut — not earlier.

There is no retro-causation.

Only the external reconfiguration of ability prior to actualisation.

History does not change; readiness does.

---

5. The Quantum Eraser

The apparent paradox

Erasing which-path information brings interference back “from the dead.”

The readiness resolution

Suppressing which-path information changes ability:

morphisms that were previously disallowed become admissible again.

Erasing information does not restore an earlier state;

it restores an earlier ability configuration.

Interference returns because inclination is once again allowed to express itself.

No paradox — only a reversible constraint.

---

6. Entanglement

The apparent paradox

Two distant systems exhibit correlations that seem to require superluminal influence.

The readiness resolution

Entanglement is a case of co-inclination — a single internal structure spread across multiple loci.

Measurement supplies local ability, determining which morphism is actualised locally.

The global inclination ensures correlations among morphisms.

There is no influence between locations.

The internal structure is shared; the external abilities are local; actualisation respects both.

Nonlocality only appears if one assumes a global ability structure.

There isn’t one.

---

7. Nonlocality (Bell, CHSH)

The apparent paradox

Bell-type violations imply faster-than-light coordination.

The readiness resolution

Bell’s inequalities assume:

1. a single underlying ability structure (universal hidden variables),

2. independence between inclination and ability,

3. separability of potential.

All three assumptions are false.

Ability is local.

Inclination is relational.

Readiness is not factorisable into separable independent potentials.

Once inclination and ability are distinguished, Bell violations are completely unsurprising and require no signalling whatsoever.

---

8. The Measurement Problem

The apparent paradox

How does a continuous wavefunction produce a single discrete outcome?

The readiness resolution

Inclination supports multiple coherent morphisms.

Ability constrains which morphisms remain available.

Actualisation selects one morphism among:

• those shaped by inclination

• those permitted by ability.

There is no collapse, no discontinuity, and no contradiction.

The cut is perspectival: the selection of a specific morphism, not destruction of structure.

---

9. Contextuality

The apparent paradox

The outcome depends on the measurement context.

The readiness resolution

Of course it depends on context:

context = ability.

Inclination alone never determines actualisation;

it shapes readiness.

Ability structures which morphisms can be selected.

Contextuality is not weird.

It is the essence of relational potential.

---

10. Interference vs Which-Path

The apparent paradox

Knowing the path destroys interference.

The readiness resolution

Which-path detection is an ability structure that removes certain morphisms from availability.

Interference is not “destroyed”;

it is simply no longer admissible.

Change the ability → change the set of allowable morphisms.

No mystery.

No metaphysical violence.

---

The Structural Pattern

Across all these cases, one and the same pattern repeats:

• Inclination provides multiple structurally coherent ways the system may unfold.

• Ability determines which of these ways remain available in a particular interaction.

• Actualisation selects one morphism from the admissible set.

Quantum “paradoxes” appear only when inclination is mistaken for ability or ability is mistaken for inclination.

Correct the conflation, and the paradoxes collapse — not the wavefunction.