Meta-Possibility: 2 Epistemic Horizons — Limits and Extensions

Meta-possibility confronts a fundamental constraint: what can be known, perceived, or imagined shapes the very horizon of what may be actualised. Epistemic limits define the contours of possibility; they are not merely obstacles, but relational conditions that structure potentiality. At the same time, deliberate extension of these limits — through exploration, modelling, and imaginative projection — actively expands the field of meta-possibility.

Cognition and perception operate as selective operators on the relational field. Attention determines which potentialities are foregrounded, memory modulates their accessibility, and imagination generates novel configurations that might otherwise remain latent. The relational co-dependence between observer and observed renders epistemic horizons fluid: to observe, model, or conceptualise potential is simultaneously to constrain and enable its actualisation.

Speculative modelling exemplifies this dynamic. By constructing scenarios, formal models, or simulations, we explore contingencies that do not yet exist. These exercises are not abstract: they reshape the relational field by introducing new alignments, identifying emergent constraints, and revealing previously unconsidered pathways. In this sense, epistemic expansion is itself a form of meta-actualisation, enlarging the horizon of possible futures through structured exploration.

Limits, however, are unavoidable. Human perception is bounded, cognitive resources are finite, and symbolic systems carry inherited constraints. These boundaries are not merely deficits; they create the conditions under which relational patterns become discernible. Paradoxically, the presence of epistemic limits is what allows meta-possibility to be strategically navigated: understanding the contours of what is unknowable or unimaginable enables the careful modulation of actualisation.

Modulatory voices: Philosophical and cognitive perspectives emphasise that epistemic horizons are themselves historical and culturally situated. What is knowable in one system or epoch may be inconceivable in another. Scientific, artistic, and symbolic innovation expand these horizons over time, creating meta-possibility as a dynamic interplay between constraint and creative extension. Reflexive awareness of epistemic limits, therefore, is not a negation of possibility but a condition for the deliberate expansion and shaping of potentialities.