Quantum Possibility: Fractures in the Invisible Metaphysics

Quantum theory is often presented as a formal edifice: equations, operators, wavefunctions, probabilities. It is celebrated for its precision, its predictive success, and its undeniable utility. Yet beneath this surface lies a layer of conceptual tension rarely articulated: the metaphysics silently assumed by habit and the fractures that the theory itself continuously introduces.

The Sedimented Metaphysics

From the start, our reading of quantum physics is shaped by an invisible scaffolding. This metaphysics assumes that the world is composed of discrete objects with definite properties, that measurement uncovers pre-existing facts, and that reality is singular, continuous, and objective. It is the habitual cut through possibility that allows physicists to navigate their instruments, theories, and textbooks with confidence.

Yet this cut is invisible precisely because it is sedimented. We do not notice it; it is taken for granted. It is the background of background, the meta-habit that allows us to interpret formalism as though it describes a pre-given world rather than a field of enacted possibility.

Fractures in the Familiar

Quantum theory, however, refuses to remain comfortably aligned with these assumptions. Superposition shows that entities can exist in multiple, mutually exclusive states until a perspective (measurement) is enacted. Entanglement demonstrates that properties of systems are relational, not local. Contextuality reveals that outcomes depend upon the conditions of their observation, not solely on intrinsic properties.

Each of these features is a fracture in the habitual metaphysics. They destabilise the sedimented assumption that the world is fully determinate and that objects can be considered independently of one another. The formalism is relentlessly relational: it gestures toward a web of possibilities, not an inventory of discrete certainties.

Physicists themselves felt these fractures acutely. Einstein famously objected to entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.” Others described the behaviour of particles as “weird,” “bizarre,” or “incomprehensible.” These reactions mark the tension between the sedimented metaphysical expectations and the fractured relational reality the theory exposes.

Voices of the Founders

Niels Bohr repeatedly emphasised the perspectival nature of physics:

“It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature.”

“When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images.”

Similarly, Werner Heisenberg highlighted the relational engagement between observer and observed:

“Natural science does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves.”

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”

These reflections underscore that even at the formal level, the founders recognised the perspectival, enacted character of physical knowledge.

Possibility Surfaces and Retreats

Yet, almost paradoxically, these fractures are often smoothed over by interpretation. Wavefunctions collapse in our thinking into classical objects. Probabilities are recast as ignorance rather than fundamental openness. Entangled systems are imagined as distant objects temporarily sharing hidden variables. Habit reasserts itself, sedimenting closure atop relational openness.

Possibility is present, but largely forgotten. The field that allows multiple outcomes to coexist until construal is enacted is overshadowed by the illusion of determinate facts. The cuts made by the theory are felt as inevitabilities rather than perspectival differentiations.

A Relational Reading

To read quantum physics in the spirit of relational ontology is not to debate interpretations, nor to choose among many-worlds, Copenhagen, or pilot-wave metaphysics. It is to attend to the fractures themselves, noticing how the formalism destabilises habitual assumptions and opens fields of possibility.

It is to see measurement not as passive revelation, but as the enactment of a cut: the taking up of potential into particularity. It is to see systems as relationally held rather than independently existing. It is to recognise that what appears determinate is a pattern emerging from the holding of possibility, not the inevitable shape of reality.

Lessons for Possibility

Quantum physics, read relationally, illustrates the tension between structured potential and habitual closure, sedimentation of cuts, and fragility of worlds that appear inevitable.

Fractures are always present; their consequences are not. Habit is strong; openness is easily forgotten. Yet attending to the invisible metaphysics reveals a locus for renewed possibility: moments where patterns might diverge, where construals might differ, where phenomena might appear otherwise.

Inhabiting the Quantum Edge

To dwell at this edge is to adopt a perspective that acknowledges both the habitual solidity of the world and the ongoing presence of relational potential. It is to participate in the enactment of possibility without assuming closure. It is to remain attentive to the ways in which patterns, cuts, and perspectives shape experience.

In this sense, quantum theory is less a collection of mathematical truths than a mirror for thinking relationally: a field in which structured potential is continually enacted, fractured, and sedimented, revealing the enduring tension between possibility and habit, between relational openness and the invisibility of assumed metaphysics.

The lesson is subtle but profound: the metaphysics of quantum physics is not only fractured by the theory itself, it is fractured precisely where we no longer notice it, offering an opportunity to inhabit worlds more attentively, relationally, and openly.