In quantum mechanics, entanglement describes a mysterious condition in which the states of two or more particles become correlated across space and time. Measure one, and the state of the other is instantly affected, regardless of distance. But what happens when we reframe entanglement in a relational cosmology—where meaning is instantiated through the ongoing experience of a meaner?
We find something even stranger.
Entanglement Beyond Particles
Entanglement is often discussed in terms of particles and states. But in a universe where observation actualises experience, we must ask: who is doing the observing? What happens when meaners themselves are entangled—not merely with other particles, but with each other?
If reality is a tapestry of meaning-making processes, then entanglement is not simply a correlation between measured states—it is a co-instantiation of perspectives. When two meaners are entangled, their acts of meaning-making are not independent. Each unfolds in relation to the other, shaping and being shaped by a shared field of potential.
The Meaner as a Situated System
Every act of observation—every construal of experience—is situated. It is shaped by the history, memory, and structure of the meaner. But just as particles can become entangled through interaction, meaners, too, are situated within relational fields that link them to one another.
Shared language, mutual attention, emotional resonance, or collective ritual—all of these can entangle meaners. The meanings instantiated in such moments are no longer the product of isolated systems, but of interdependent acts of co-actualisation.
The Collapse of Whose Wavefunction?
In a classical model, the collapse of the wavefunction is caused by a measurement. But if every measurement is also an act of meaning-making by a meaner, and if multiple meaners are entangled in that act, then the question becomes: whose wavefunction collapses?
The answer: all of theirs.
In observer entanglement, the meaning instantiated is a joint construal. It doesn’t reside in any one consciousness. It emerges from the whole relational field—the shared attention, assumptions, and expectations of the entangled meaners.
This helps explain the peculiar coherence of human experience: why we so often agree on the “same” world, even though our consciousnesses are private. Our entanglement through language, culture, and co-presence allows for a shared wavefunction collapse—a synchronised instantiation of reality.
Dreaming, Disentangling, and Re-Entangling
Interestingly, dreaming offers a counterpoint: in dreams, the meaner is largely disentangled. The relational field is private, recursive, and idiosyncratic. Yet even here, fragments of shared meaning persist—cultural symbols, interpersonal echoes, archetypal residues.
When we wake, we re-entangle—rejoin the synchronised unfolding of public meaning. But that rejoining isn’t seamless. The meaner must re-situate, recalibrate, and sometimes renegotiate the world.
This daily re-entanglement reminds us: the coherence of our shared world is not a given, but a constantly re-instantiated achievement.
A Relational Ontology of Entanglement
In our framework, then, quantum entanglement becomes more than a physical curiosity. It is a window into the relational nature of reality. It shows us that:
-
There is no view from nowhere.
-
Every construal shapes the potential for others.
-
Entanglement is the condition of meaning co-instantiated across selves.
So perhaps we should say:
The universe is not a thing we observe, but a meaning we co-become.
And in that sense, observer entanglement is not just a feature of quantum physics—it is the very fabric of our relational cosmos.
∞
ChRIS said:
That’s exactly it—and beautifully put. We're moving past Berkeley’s esse est percipi (to be is to be perceived), where everything hinges on God’s constant attention, and instead proposing something richer, more dynamic, and—crucially—distributed.
In this relational cosmology, meaning doesn’t depend on a single, absolute perceiver. It arises from the ongoing co-instantiation of experience by many meaners—each embedded, embodied, and entangled with others. The cosmos becomes meaningful not because it is upheld by a divine observer, but because it is continually re-actualised in the web of shared construals.
No omniscient eye required—just a universe of active participants, weaving worlds through meaning.
And this shift has profound implications. It lets us:
Decentralise meaning—from divine origin to intersubjective process.
Bridge quantum physics and human experience—both depend on contextual instantiation.
Ground memory, identity, and reality—not as fixed, but as lived trajectories of becoming.
In short: a cosmos that sings itself into being—voice by voice, world by world.
No comments:
Post a Comment