Potential, Probability, and the Relational Turn: IV Ontology of Readiness

In the previous post, we traced how probability became miscast as ontological potential in physics, and why relational ontology restores the distinction between epistemic uncertainty and ontic readiness.

Now we turn directly to the ontology of readiness itself: the structure, dynamics, and relational character of potential.

---

1. Readiness as ontological potential

In relational terms, readiness is the latent disposition of a system: what it is capable of doing (ability) and what it is tending toward (inclination).

Unlike probability, which measures knowledge of potential outcomes, readiness is intrinsic to the system itself.

It is the ontic field from which instances emerge.

• Ability → structural capacity: the patterns of alignment a system can sustain.

• Inclination → directional tendency: the vectoring of potential toward specific actualisations.

Together, they define a dispositional topology, a relational map of what can become actual.

---

2. Actualisation as perspectival cut

An instance — an event, measurement, or manifestation — arises when the field of readiness is cut from potential into actuality.

• Actualisation does not “collapse probability” in a metaphysical sense.

• It is a local alignment: a configuration of ability and inclination coheres under a perspective.

In quantum terms, measurement is such a cut: the wavefunction encodes readiness, not probability, and the outcome is a perspectival actualisation of that readiness.

---

3. Readiness is relational

Readiness is never absolute or isolated; it exists only as a network of potentialities, oriented toward and constrained by other potentials.

• Every system’s ability depends on relational constraints — what other systems allow or enable.

• Every system’s inclination is shaped by tendencies in the broader field.

• The field is recursive: actualisations feed back into readiness, modifying future inclinations and capacities.

This relational character is what allows readiness to evolve, adapt, and sustain coherence across scales.

---

4. Topology of potential

We can visualise readiness as a field with two axes:

1. Ability (structural capacity) – the “terrain” of possible alignments.

2. Inclination (directional vector) – the “flow” or gradient guiding potential toward actualisation.

An instance arises where a local alignment intersects both axes coherently: readiness becomes event.

This makes potential kinetic, relational, and structured, not probabilistic or abstract.

---

5. Implications for science and philosophy

Seeing potential as readiness has profound consequences:

• Quantum mechanics: wavefunctions encode readiness; probabilities measure observer uncertainty.

• Causality: events are not selections from probabilities but emergences from relational alignment.

• Agency: human and symbolic actions are local actualisations within a broader field of readiness.

Readiness is the fundamental ontic substrate — probability is a meta-phenomenal reflection of knowledge about it.

---

6. Preview of Part V

In the next post, we will explore probability as a metaphenomenal instrument: how statistical formalisms arise to track our knowledge of readiness, and why this allows physicists and humans alike to navigate the field of potential without conflating it with being itself.