Cosmos of Possibility: The Architecture of Becoming 6 Scientific Cosmos

If mythology and theology map possibility through symbolic authority, science maps it through formal structures: laws, constants, equations, and models. Scientific cosmoses codify and constrain what can be in ways that feel objective, but are deeply relational and perspectival.

Science performs three moves in structuring possibility:

1. Formal Constraint — Physical laws delineate what trajectories, interactions, and configurations are possible within a system.

2. Abstraction and Idealisation — Models isolate aspects of the world, suppressing complexity to render possibility tractable, yet always imposing a perspective.

3. Predictive Orientation — By translating potential into expectation, science shapes not just understanding but also the horizon of action and technological realisation.

Yet scientific cosmoses are not neutral mirrors of reality. They construct relational landscapes, defining what counts as possible, probable, or impossible. Every measurement, model, or law is a perspectival cut through a broader, still-unfolding field of potential.

From quantum probabilities to cosmological constants, the scientific cosmos demonstrates that constraint does not equal closure. Possibility is structured, yet still emergent — the cosmos is a field in motion, not a pre-written script.

Understanding scientific cosmoses in this relational way reveals how human and collective imagination, tools, and reasoning co-shape the space of possibility, even under the guise of “objective” knowledge.