Following the bridge from ontological responsibility to relational ontology, we arrive at a principle that is both simple and profound: possibility is structured before it is actualised, and actualisation requires choice, perspective, and constraint. Quantum mechanics, for all its technical specificity, offers a striking illustration of this general principle.
Structured Potential
In quantum mechanics, the state of a system is described as a superposition of possibilities. This is not a description of a fuzzy reality, nor is it a failure to measure precisely; it is a depiction of the structured potential inherent in the system. Each possible outcome exists within a network of constraints defined by the formalism. Some transitions are allowed, others are forbidden, and all are governed by precise probabilistic relationships.
The relational lesson is clear: potentiality is not arbitrary. Systems—physical, biological, or symbolic—have structure. Possibilities do not float freely; they are organised by the relations that define the system’s integrity.
Actualisation as Perspectival Cut
A measurement, interaction, or choice is what transforms structured potential into actuality. This is what relational ontology calls a perspectival cut: a selection from the field of possibilities that becomes real from a particular standpoint. In quantum mechanics, this is literally the act of measurement; in other systems, it may take the form of a decision, a manifestation of a constraint, or a symbolic articulation.
This cut is perspectival not because it depends on an individual mind, but because it emerges from a particular position within the structured potential of the system. To actualise is always to choose a perspective, to draw a distinction, to instantiate one among many possibilities.
Constraints Enable, Not Restrict
It is tempting to think of constraints as limitations. Quantum mechanics teaches us otherwise. Constraints—whether they be the rules of a Hamiltonian, the boundary conditions of a lab experiment, or the structure of a social system—enable certain possibilities to emerge coherently. Without constraints, nothing can actualise in a controlled or intelligible way. Constraint is the medium in which potential becomes determinate.
Relational ontology generalises this insight: freedom is meaningful only within constraint, and actualisation is intelligible only through structure.
Patterns Beyond Physics
The lesson of constraint and possibility extends beyond quantum mechanics. Consider:
Biology: Evolution navigates a landscape of potential mutations and environmental pressures; the organism emerges from both possibility and constraint.
Social coordination: Communities actualise norms, institutions, and behaviours from potential social interactions, constrained by roles, laws, and communication structures.
Symbolic systems: Language, mathematics, and culture emerge from a structured space of potential signs, constrained by rules, conventions, and communicative contexts.
In each domain, the relational pattern is the same: possibility is structured, actualisation is perspectival, and constraints are enabling.
Why This Matters
Constraint and possibility are not abstract philosophical notions; they are the conditions under which any system—natural or symbolic—can function coherently. Recognising them is the first step toward responsible articulation. To speak, act, or intervene is always to select from a structured field of potential, and every selection carries implicit ontological and ethical weight.
Quantum mechanics is exemplary not because it is physics alone, but because it magnifies the operation of these principles: the potential is precise, the constraints exact, and the actualisation unavoidable. In observing this, we are prepared to see relational cuts in every domain where possibility is exercised and constraints are respected.
The Move Forward
Having seen how constraints shape possibility in physics and beyond, the next post will explore construal in practice. We will trace how perspectival cuts instantiate events and meaning across domains—biological, social, and symbolic—and consider how relational ontology can guide responsible engagement with these processes.
Constraint and possibility are no longer abstract; they are lived, exercised, and observed. Relational ontology is the language for naming, understanding, and caring for these processes without resorting to false neutrality or unexamined assumptions.
No comments:
Post a Comment