Relational Quantum Dynamics and Indra’s Net

Relational Quantum Dynamics and Indra’s Net: A non-dual understanding of quantum reality

Prof. Arash E. Zaghi

Professor Zaghi introduces Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD), a further development of Carlo Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) with a solid mathematical and metaphysical basis. RQD circumvents the infinite regress inherent to RQM (everything being constituted of relations between meta-relations, and these consisting of relations between meta-meta-relations, etc., ad infinitum) by proposing that, although all physical entities are indeed relational, the relations—and even spacetime itself—arise within an underlying field awareness.

From the non-dual viewpoint, central to Eastern philosophical traditions, the idea that observer and observed arise independently is an illusion. RQD formally captures this non-dual insight: the observer and observed do not exist prior to their mutual interaction. Instead, their identity co-emerges relationally. Before interaction, the supposed “observer” and “observed” are undefined entities. Through interaction, both acquire their states simultaneously, their distinctions emerging from their mutual reflection.

From a category-theoretic perspective, this idea of non-duality can be expressed clearly through what’s known as the Yoneda lemma. The Yoneda lemma is a foundational insight stating that an object’s identity is entirely defined by how it relates to all other objects [9]. In other words, to fully know something, you don’t need to find its isolated essence—you just need to understand how it interacts with everything else. Applied to quantum mechanics, this means quantum objects—whether observers or systems being observed—don’t have any independent existence or inherent properties outside their interactions. Their identities and properties emerge completely from the network of relationships they participate in. This mathematical insight aligns remarkably well with the relational view at the heart of RQD, highlighting that reality is fundamentally built from relationships rather than isolated objects.

This lemma seems false to me?

[Laird]

This lemma seems false to me?

Based on its Wikipedia article, it at least seems more technical and mathematical than might seem by the casual description given in the article. I presume that its formalisation is correct (but it's beyond me to investigate). Whether the article's casual description does that formalisation justice, I don't know. We could, of course, simply take that casual description on its own terms, independent of the formalisation, in which case, I'd agree with you that it's false.