In Part 1, we introduced Quantum Structuralism — the claim that reality is made of relations, not objects. It destabilises naive object realism, yes, but only up to a point. Beneath its elegant rhetoric, it quietly re-inscribes a classical metaphysical scaffold: a “world-as-it-is” that exists independently of observation, theory, or construal.
Let’s examine where this structure falters.
1. The Silent Substrate
Quantum Structuralism declares relations fundamental, yet it assumes that these relations “attach” to something. This is the hidden substrate: a mind-independent quantum world, populated by particles, fields, or wavefunctions.
-
The article by George Webster describes quantum behaviour as revealing fundamental patterns.
-
But “revealing” presumes there is something there to be revealed.
-
Relational ontology refuses this assumption. There is no substrate to reveal. Only potentialities are structured as theories, and actualisation is perspectival.
The difference is subtle but decisive: Quantum Structuralism replaces objects with structures, whereas relational ontology replaces the substrate itself with construal.
2. Relations vs. Construal
Quantum Structuralism treats relations as entities: “A particle is entangled with another particle; therefore, the relation exists fundamentally.”
Relational ontology reframes this:
-
Relations are never independent. They exist only in the act of construal — in the perspectival actualisation of a system.
-
Phenomena are the first-order experience of a construal; metaphenomena are the theory of patterns that describe it.
-
Quantum mechanics provides one construal of the potential; it does not exhaust the meaning of reality.
In short: what Quantum Structuralism treats as ontologically basic, relational ontology treats as derivative of perspective.
3. Structuralism Cannot Capture the Cline of Instantiation
One of relational ontology’s core insights is that instantiation is a cline between potential and actualisation, not a static pattern in a pre-existing world.
-
In Quantum Structuralism, particles “have” relations that define them.
-
In relational ontology, a particle—or any instance—is the perspectival actualisation of potential within a system.
-
This makes instantiation dynamic, context-sensitive, and always relationally constituted.
Quantum Structuralism, by contrast, freezes instantiation into the structure itself — it mistakes a local pattern for a global ontology.
4. The Advantage of Relational Ontology
Why does this matter? Because relational ontology:
-
Removes the hidden assumption of a mind-independent world.
-
Accounts for the perspectival, co-constitutive nature of instantiation.
-
Maintains a clear distinction between potential, instance, and construal — which Quantum Structuralism collapses into structure.
-
Provides a generalised framework applicable beyond physics, to language, social systems, and meaning itself.
Quantum mechanics destabilises the object myth. Relational ontology dissolves the substrate myth and shows us the full range of what it means for phenomena to arise.
Next in the series: We will map the fully relational alternative, contrasting it explicitly with the structuralist framework, and show why replacing objects with structures is not enough — the relational cut goes deeper.
No comments:
Post a Comment