As we have argued in a recent series, much of this dissatisfaction arises from a category error: when physicists speak of “reality,” they are no longer doing physics alone, but often fail to notice that they have crossed into philosophy. They simultaneously suppress, rename, deny, or displace ontology in ways that obscure their own commitments.
The resulting tension is not a defect of quantum mechanics, but a symptom of a broader challenge: ontology is unavoidable, and yet it is rarely acknowledged or exercised responsibly.
This series begins from that observation. It does not propose quantum mechanics as a foundation for metaphysics. It does not argue that physics “supports” any particular ontology. It begins, instead, with the simpler claim that if we are going to talk about the world responsibly, we must notice the moves we make when we draw distinctions, declare outcomes, and treat certain entities as real or unreal.
Responsibility Before Ontology
The core insight is modest but far-reaching: reality, as it appears in scientific or symbolic discourse, is always articulated through acts of construal. To construe is to draw distinctions, mark potentialities, and actualise possibilities. These acts are perspectival: they arise from particular cuts in the space of structured potential, they select certain events as outcomes, and they leave other possibilities unactualised.
In quantum mechanics, measurement is a paradigmatic example. Outcomes are not given for free; they are the result of structured, disciplined interaction. Yet the moment of measurement is often treated as a nuisance or a placeholder, rather than acknowledged as an event that carries ontological weight.
The lesson here is general: any disciplined engagement with reality—scientific, social, or symbolic—requires ownership of the cuts we enact. Pretending that constraints, distinctions, or outcomes exist independently of our engagement is a form of evasion, not rigour.
Enter Relational Ontology
Having established the inevitability of ontological responsibility, we can introduce the conceptual tools that allow us to exercise it clearly and consistently. Relational ontology does not claim to reveal reality in a final or absolute sense. It does not stand as a competitor to physics, nor does it rely on quantum mechanics for validation.
Instead, relational ontology offers a disciplined vocabulary and framework for articulating responsibility:
System as structured potential: Every phenomenon is situated within a field of potentialities, not a pre-given set of absolutes.
Instantiation as perspectival cut: Any actualisation—any outcome, event, or measurement—requires a choice, a cut that selects from potentiality.
Phenomenon as construed experience: What appears as a concrete event or reality is always the result of these cuts and constraints, not a mirror of an unmediated world.
These principles provide a methodology for responsible articulation, not a doctrine of what reality must be. They allow us to speak about events, entities, and outcomes without pretence, without smuggling in an unwarranted claim of neutrality, and without pretending that formal success absolves us of responsibility.
The Bridge Between Diagnosis and Practice
This essay serves as a bridge. It follows from the quantum series, which diagnosed the ways in which ontology is suppressed or misrepresented, and it leads to a series of posts that explore responsible construal in practice. These posts will show how relational cuts operate across domains: physics, biology, social coordination, and symbolic systems.
The trajectory is clear: first, notice the evasion; second, acknowledge the responsibility; third, articulate cuts in ways that respect constraint, perspective, and potential. Relational ontology is not imposed; it emerges as a response to the challenge that the quantum series has already made explicit.
A Quiet Invitation
This series does not preach. It does not demand agreement. It invites the reader to observe, recognise, and exercise responsibility for the distinctions they draw. By the end, the hope is that readers will see the operations of construal everywhere—without collapsing them into naïve realism, unchecked instrumentalism, or doctrinal metaphysics.
Quantum mechanics has already prepared us to see the stakes. Relational ontology simply gives us the language and framework to act with clarity and care, after the fantasy of ontology-free physics has collapsed.
No comments:
Post a Comment