Quantum Cuts: 3 Beyond Relations — The Power of Relational Ontology

In Parts 1 and 2, we traced Quantum Structuralism: the seductive claim that reality is made of relations, not objects. We saw how it destabilises naive object realism, but quietly preserves a hidden substrate, treating structure as ontologically fundamental. Quantum Structuralism replaces objects with structure, but it stops short of the radical cut relational ontology demands.

Here, we make the full move.

---

1. Relational Ontology: A Quick Refresher

Relational ontology is not about swapping one “thing” for another. It is about reconceptualising reality from the ground up. Its central pillars are:

1. Systems as theories of potential instances

   • A system is never a collection of things “out there.” It is a structured potential: a framework of possibilities that can be perspectivally actualised.

2. Instantiation as a perspectival cut

   • An instance is not the uncovering of a pre-existing object; it is the actualisation of potential from a particular point of view.

3. Construal as constitutive of phenomenon

   • Phenomena are not discovered; they are construed. Meaning arises through the act of construal, not by mapping an independent world.

4. Phenomenon vs. metaphenomenon

   • First-order phenomena: actualised, experienced events.

   • Second-order metaphenomena: the system-theory-level structures that describe or generalise patterns in phenomena.

   • Quantum mechanics is a metaphenomenal system: one lens among many for describing potential instances.

---

2. Why Relations Alone Are Not Enough

Quantum Structuralism’s error is subtle but pervasive:

• It treats relations as independently real, as if they can float free of perspective.

• It assumes a world that exists prior to construal, with structure as the primary furniture.

• It freezes instantiation into patterns that are only locally meaningful.

Relational ontology, by contrast:

• Sees relations as emergent from perspectival cuts, not as pre-existing entities.

• Makes instantiation dynamic, co-constitutive, and perspectival, always depending on potential and actualisation.

• Places meaning and semiotic construal at the centre, rather than physical or structural metaphysics.

The difference is profound: Quantum Structuralism gives us a new object myth. Relational ontology dissolves the myth entirely. The difference can be seen schematically below. Quantum Structuralism stops at structure. Relational ontology goes to construal.

---

3. Advantages of Relational Ontology

1. No hidden substrate metaphysics

   • Nothing exists “out there” independently; everything arises through actualisation and construal.

2. Universality across domains

   • Applies equally to physics, language, social systems, and semiotic phenomena.

3. Precision and clarity

   • Maintains the Hallidayan distinction between potential, instance, and construal.

   • Avoids conflating value, meaning, or symbolic systems with physical “structures.”

4. Dynamic instantiation

   • Captures the full cline from potentiality to perspectival actualisation — something structuralism can never fully model.

---

4. The Takeaway

Quantum mechanics gives us a window onto a world that does not obey classical object metaphysics. But it does not give us the tools to escape substrate thinking.

Relational ontology shows us the full cut: the quantum world is not a collection of structures or relations to be discovered; it is a domain of perspectival potentials actualised through construal.

In short:

Quantum mechanics destabilises the object myth. Relational ontology dissolves the substrate myth.

If you’ve followed the series, you now see why simply swapping “objects” for “relations” is not enough. To truly think relationally is to embrace the perspectival, co-constitutive, and semiotic character of reality itself.