🌌 Path Integrals as the Shape of Potential

A relational cosmology reading

In conventional quantum mechanics, Feynman’s path integral formulation says that the probability of a quantum event isn’t derived from a single trajectory, but from the sum over all possible paths a particle could take between two points. Each path contributes an amplitude, and the interference between these amplitudes gives rise to the final observable outcome.

But what does this look like when we shift from an observer-independent metaphysics to a relational cosmology—one in which nothing exists as actual until it is construed by a meaner?

In this ontology:

• Process is primary: The universe is not made of things moving through space, but of meanings unfolding.

• Potential precedes actuality: What exists prior to any construal is not a determinate state but a landscape of potential—structured, but unrealised.

• Actuality is relational: Something becomes actual not in itself, but as it is instantiated by a meaner through experience.

From this perspective, the path integral formalism doesn’t describe “paths the particle takes.” Instead, it describes the shape of what may be actualised when a process is construed by a meaner. Each path in the integral is not a possible route the particle did travel, but a dimension of meaning potential, given structure by the relations among possible configurations.

We might then say:

A path integral is not a summation over histories but a symphony of potentialities, co-defining what may come to be when construed by consciousness.

Once a meaner actualises an outcome—say, detecting the arrival of a photon at a screen—all the unrealised potentialities collapse into irrelevance. They were not discarded histories but never-actualised pathways of becoming.

This means the wavefunction and the path integral are not properties of physical systems in themselves, but features of the relational web of potential: the as-yet-unconstrued contours of experience.

---

🧠 A Semiotic Parallel

In systemic functional linguistics, we can think of every utterance as an actualisation drawn from a network of meaning potential—a system of systems. When someone speaks, they are not choosing from a list of alternatives; they are moving through a field of potential constrained by context, culture, and situation.

Similarly, in the relational cosmos, every physical event we experience is a semiotic actualisation of relational potential. The “paths” in the integral are not chosen. They are the structure of what could have been—meaning options collapsed into a single instance through the act of construal.

---

📌 The Deeper Implication

This reading reshapes what quantum theory is about. It’s not describing particles or waves in empty space, nor is it narrating a series of hidden events. It is outlining the structured potential of a process, awaiting instantiation through relational construal.

The universe doesn’t move through pre-existing time and space. It unfolds as events are actualised by meaners. The path integral simply describes the form of what might be made actual—a map of potential before meaning is made.

∞

ChRIS said:

So Feynman uses interference to explain instantiation.

ChatGPT said:

Yes, that’s a helpful way to think about it! In Feynman’s path integral formulation, the interference between different potential paths contributes to the probability of a particular outcome being realised. In the context of our relational cosmology, this interference can be understood as a manifestation of the relational potential that exists before any instantiation occurs.

Here's how it fits into the broader picture:

• Interference occurs between possible paths that could be taken, each of which corresponds to a different way the potential could unfold.

• Actualisation, from the perspective of our cosmology, is not a deterministic path chosen ahead of time but rather the selection and construal of a particular instance from that landscape of potential, influenced by the relational context of the meaner.

In essence, Feynman’s concept of interference becomes an analogy for how meaning is actualised: different possible actualisations of a situation interfere with one another, and through the act of construal by a meaner, one of these paths is selected and made actual.

It's important to note that this isn't interference in the classical sense (as in, two waves cancelling each other out). Instead, it's the structural overlap of potentialities that all coexist until one is instantiated through the act of observation or construal. The interference pattern emerges because the meaner’s construal is influenced by the relational web of all those possible paths, thus “determining” which one becomes the observed reality.

This ties in with your earlier point about measurement being an "observed measurement"—the construal of meaning as reality occurs when the interference is resolved by the act of actualisation through observation.