How a Disciplined Cut Became an Ontological Licence
The previous post argued that contemporary physics increasingly operates with theories that generate possible instances without generating phenomena. To understand how this posture became not only acceptable but normal, we must return to a singular historical success—one so powerful that it reshaped the metaphysical habits of an entire field.
That success was quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics did not merely revise our understanding of matter and energy. It altered the relationship between mathematics, theory, and reality itself. In doing so, it earned an extraordinary privilege: the right for mathematics to outrun intuition.
The problem is not that this privilege was granted. The problem is that it was later generalised.
What Quantum Mechanics Actually Did
Much of the mythology surrounding quantum mechanics rests on a simple but misleading idea: that a mathematical object—the wavefunction—is the physical object it describes. On this view, the success of quantum theory lies in its revelation that reality is, at bottom, mathematical.
From a relational perspective, this diagnosis is mistaken.
The wavefunction is not a phenomenon. It is not an object encountered in experience, nor a first-order meaning. It is a second-order construct: a mathematical specification of a system of possible outcomes. It articulates a structured space of potential instances, not an inventory of actual events.
Phenomena appear only at the point of actualisation—when a perspectival cut is made through measurement, detection, or experimental intervention. What appears is not the wavefunction itself, but an event: a click, a mark, a trace, a value.
Quantum mechanics succeeded not because it collapsed the distinction between theory and phenomenon, but because it managed it with unprecedented discipline.
The Tightness of the Quantum Cut
What distinguished quantum mechanics from earlier and later theoretical ventures was the tight coupling between:
mathematical formalism,
experimental arrangement,
and phenomenal outcome.
Each element constrained the others. The mathematics did not float free of experimental practice, and experimental practice did not proceed independently of theory. Most importantly, phenomenal actualisation was not optional. The theory earned its authority precisely by being answerable to events.
This tightness matters. It is what allowed quantum mechanics to make predictions that were not merely numerically accurate but phenomenally decisive. The success of the theory lay not in its mathematical audacity alone, but in the reliability of the cut that linked formalism to experience.
The Cultural Mislearning
The extraordinary success of quantum mechanics left a deep imprint—not only on physics, but on its philosophical self-understanding.
What physics learned, institutionally and rhetorically, was not simply that mathematics could exceed classical intuition. It learned that mathematics could do so and still be right. From this, a powerful heuristic emerged:
If a mathematically coherent theory once revealed aspects of reality that intuition could not anticipate, then mathematical coherence itself may serve as a provisional guide to ontology.
This heuristic worked once, under very specific conditions. Over time, it hardened into a methodological habit.
The requirement for phenomenal actualisation, once central, became negotiable. Mathematics retained its authority; the cut that had earned that authority quietly loosened.
From Exception to Template
Quantum mechanics was an exception in a precise sense: it was a case in which mathematics legitimately outran intuition while remaining answerable to phenomena. Later theoretical developments retained the first half of this lesson while forgetting the second.
As a result, a pattern emerged:
Mathematical systems are developed to resolve tensions within theory-space.
These systems generate vast families of possible instances.
Phenomenal instantiation is postponed, sometimes indefinitely.
Yet the rhetoric of discovery remains. Possibility is spoken of as existence; internal coherence is treated as ontological warrant.
From a relational standpoint, this is not a continuation of the quantum revolution but a misapplication of it.
Saving Realism Without Repeating the Error
The appeal of this posture is understandable. Quantum mechanics shattered classical pictures of the world, leaving physics without a reliable intuitive grasp of its own objects. Mathematics stepped in to fill that gap—not merely as a tool, but as a surrogate intuition.
But replacing intuition with calculation does not eliminate the need for stratification. A loss of picturability does not license a collapse of the distinction between system, instance, and phenomenon.
Quantum mechanics does not show that mathematics is reality. It shows that reality can only be accessed through disciplined construal—and that such construal must culminate in phenomenal actualisation.
The failure to preserve this lesson has led to a form of realism that floats free of actuality: confident, elegant, and increasingly unmoored from event.
In the next post, we will distinguish two very different kinds of theoretical construct now circulating under the same rhetorical banner: those born from phenomenal instability, and those born from theoretical discomfort. The difference between them is ontologically decisive.
No comments:
Post a Comment