Probability as Strangeness

Quantum mechanics is often presented as a domain of inherent oddity. Popular accounts speak of particles being “in two places at once,” of outcomes that “defy logic,” or of probabilities that introduce a “strangeness” into the very fabric of reality. One metaphor that recurs is that of a “ruck in the carpet” — a wrinkle in the tidy, predictable landscape of classical physics. Probability, in this framing, is a hidden quirk of nature, a subtle irregularity that disrupts the world’s expected order.

From a relational perspective, this interpretation is deeply misleading. Probability is not a property of events themselves; it is a reflection of the relational weighting of potentialities. It arises from the interplay of the symbolic choices we make — which events to observe, which interactions to track, which instruments to employ — and the alignment of these choices across histories. When we calculate probabilities, we are not peering into some ontological secret hidden in the universe. We are assessing how potential construals instantiate within the selected framework of observation and theory.

Consider Feynman’s “sum over histories” approach. Each history contributes to the probability of an event, but these contributions are not independent pieces of reality stacked together; they are relationally interwoven, their effects mediated by the complex structure of the theoretical framework. What emerges as probability is a property of the alignment between framework, instrument, and phenomenon — not an intrinsic “weirdness” lodged in the particles themselves.

Treating probability as a source of strangeness encourages the mistaken view that the universe is fundamentally irrational or that quantum mechanics is ontologically fractured. Relationally, what appears as “strangeness” is simply the reflection of a more subtle ordering: the probabilistic pattern is a fingerprint of the relational structure that makes prediction possible.

In short: probability is not a hidden quirk of the cosmos; it is a measure of relational construal. The ruck in the carpet is not in reality itself — it is in the interpretive lens through which we engage it. Understanding this shifts quantum mechanics from a theatre of mystery to a domain of disciplined relational reasoning, where what we call probability is nothing more — and nothing less — than the echo of our own symbolic choices.