In both popular science and foundational physics, the observer is often treated as a mysterious agent—either a passive collector of data or, more provocatively, as the cause of wavefunction collapse. In the relational model, however, we reconceive the observer not as an intruder upon reality, but as a necessary condition for its instantiation. The observer becomes a transformational interface: the locus through which potentials are made actual.
The Observer as a Site of Instantiation
In quantum mechanics, a system evolves according to a wavefunction, describing multiple possible outcomes. But this potential remains uninstantiated until an observation occurs. In our relational model, this means: no process is actualised until it is interpreted by a meaning-making system—what we call an observer.
But this is not merely a semantic shift. The wavefunction is not just mathematical fiction or metaphysical fog; it describes a structured field of potential process instantiations. What observation provides is not mere disruption, but the semiotic anchoring that allows a particular path to unfold.
Thus, the observer is not merely detecting what is, but participating in what becomes.
Media of Reality
If space and time are not containers but relations among instances, then reality is media-rich. Processes unfold not into a vacuum but within a communicative matrix: space and time are the media through which processes express themselves.
In this sense, the universe is not an empty theatre waiting for its cast, but a dramaturgical field where actors and stage are co-instantiated. The observer is the aperture through which this stage is brought into view—not by watching, but by meaning-making.
The observer is the transformational interface that collapses potential fields into situated realities. And since each observer brings their own meaning potential, each instantiation is partially local, even while constrained by universal structure.
Entanglement as Interfacial Constraint
In this light, entanglement is not spooky but systemic. When two particles are entangled, the instantiation of one process constrains the instantiation of the other—not across space, but through a shared field of potential. The observer who collapses one doesn’t cause a change in the other; rather, their instantiation realises a pattern already inherent in the field of potential.
This preserves locality in a relational sense: the observer does not violate causal structure, but participates in a meaning event that spans multiple process potentials.
From Epistemology to Ontogenesis
Classically, we think of the observer as seeking to know the world. In this model, the observer doesn’t merely know—it participates in the becoming of the world. Not because they create it from nothing, but because they actualise what was possible only through their act of construal.
In short, the observer is not epistemic, but ontogenetic: not a seeker of truth, but a transformer of potential.
Closing Reflection: The Mirror that Shapes
We’ve long asked, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” The relational model reframes this: if there is no one to construe the process of falling, then the tree’s fall remains potential, uninstantiated—not because nothing happened, but because nothing was transformed into meaning.
The observer is not the cause of the event, but the mirror that gives it form. Not the final judge, but the first poet of the actual.
No comments:
Post a Comment