Wavefunction Collapse: Instantiation, Not Pre-Existence

Wavefunction Collapse: Instantiation, Not Pre-Existence

One of the challenges in interpreting wavefunction collapse is how to frame the relationship between potential and instance without falling into misleading ontological assumptions. Conventionally, physicists talk about the wavefunction as representing a "pre-existing" set of possibilities, from which one outcome is "selected" upon measurement. But this language carries implicit assumptions that may obscure what's actually happening.

Observation Potential vs. Observation Instance

A sharper way to frame this is to distinguish between observation potential and observation instance. Instead of thinking of the wavefunction as a pre-existing physical entity, we recognise it as an instance of meaning—constructed by the physicist who calculates its mathematical form. It describes the observation potential of the system: the range of possible outcomes that could be instantiated upon measurement.

When a measurement occurs, an observation instance is actualised. This isn't a selection from an independently existing set of possibilities; rather, it is an instantiation that necessarily aligns with the observation potential that was mathematically described.

Why This Matters

This framing avoids the common mistake of treating the wavefunction as if it exists in the same way a particle does. The wavefunction does not exist as an actual entity—it is an instance of meaning, constructed by an observer to describe a potential range of outcomes. The collapse of the wavefunction is then simply the instantiation of one of these outcomes, as determined by the act of observation.

This resolves the misleading dichotomy between selection and instantiation. Instantiation is a kind of selection, but only in the sense that any instance must be drawn from the potential defined by the observer. What collapses isn’t some hidden physical reality—it’s the transition from potential to instance, made actual through the act of measurement.

By shifting to this perspective, we eliminate the need to posit a "pre-existing" wavefunction that somehow transforms into a particle. Instead, we see the wavefunction as a way of construing potential, and collapse as the point where meaning is instantiated in reality through observation. This aligns naturally with our broader discussions on meaning-making, reinforcing that potential is not a thing-in-itself but a structuring of possibility within an observer-dependent framework.