Relational Cuts: 1 From Phenomenon to Cut

Why observation presupposes distinction

In the previous series, we followed physics to a point where phenomena could no longer be treated as pre-existing objects, and where observation was revealed as a constitutive operation rather than a passive act. That revelation left us with a threshold: meaning is indispensable, but physics alone cannot explain it.

This series begins by stepping across that threshold.

We start with the most elementary move: the cut. A cut is not a measurement, a mind, or a discovery of an independent entity. It is a relational distinction that actualises a phenomenon. Without it, nothing is intelligible as anything. Without it, physics has no subject, no object, no phenomenon.

Observation as cut

What we call observation is, at its core, a structured act of differentiating. It selects a domain within a system, sets the terms under which we treat certain features as relevant, and stabilises them into a phenomenon. This is what makes an “object” appear — not in the metaphysical sense, but in the operational sense that allows physics to say something consistent.

Every experiment, every measurement, every formalisation is already an act of cutting. Remove the arrangement, and the phenomenon dissolves. Remove the distinction, and the phenomenon has no identity. Observation is never passive because the cut is never neutral.

Phenomena are outcomes, not things

A phenomenon is not a thing waiting to be discovered. It is an actualisation within a relational context. It arises because distinctions have been drawn and conditions have been stabilised. Physics made this visible, but it is a structural fact, not a technical quirk.

Consider an analogy. In a landscape, a river does not exist until its course is traced by water over time. The cut is like that tracing: it does not create water, but it defines the path that counts as river. Without tracing, there is water, but no river. Without the cut, there is a world, but no intelligible phenomenon.

Cuts are not human

It is crucial to note that the cut is not synonymous with consciousness, nor with human intervention. Cuts can occur in any system capable of stabilising distinctions — a detector, a network, a chemical interaction. Human observation is just one instance in which the cut is made explicit. Physics becomes aware of phenomena precisely because it can observe the cuts it performs.

The structural payoff

Recognising cuts reframes the problems left unresolved by the previous series:

• Phenomena do not pre-exist: they are actualised.

• Observation is constitutive: it defines what counts as a phenomenon.

• Meaning is implicit in the act of cutting: no phenomenon, no intelligibility.

This is the first move toward a relational ontology. It is not a solution, but a clarification of the conditions under which phenomena are possible.

The next instalment will take this further, showing how systems and instances are structured in relation to cuts, and why actuality is perspectival rather than temporal. The cut is the foundation; what follows is the architecture it supports.