Two Faces of Potential: Probability and Readiness

Potential is the ground of all becoming. But not all potential is the same: it appears to us in two complementary forms — readiness and probability. Understanding the distinction is key to resolving longstanding confusions in physics and clarifying the relational nature of possibility itself.

---

1. Readiness: the ontic posture of reality

Readiness is reality’s own structured disposition — the ontic potential. It is the relational tension and systemic structure that makes actualisation possible. Readiness is not a projection of knowledge or an artefact of measurement; it is the cosmos leaning into its own possibilities, the field of structured potential from which all instances emerge.

Inclination and ability are the two aspects of this readiness:

• Inclination names the directional posture of readiness — the tendencies, biases, and gradients toward particular forms of becoming.

• Ability names the competence of readiness — what configurations it can sustain, what actualisations it can support.

Both aspects are facets of a single relational field. They co-define readiness without dividing it into separate ontological strata.

Example — Quantum:

A quantum field is structured to support certain excitations and interactions. Its inclination manifests in symmetry-breakings or preferred modes; its ability in the spectrum of particle states it can support. When a particle is observed, the field’s ability becomes phenomenally manifest, but the field’s readiness exists independently of any observation.

---

2. Probability: the epistemic measure of potential

Probability, by contrast, is not a property of reality itself. It is epistemic, the tool by which we model our uncertainty about how readiness will manifest. Probabilities quantify our ignorance: they represent what we can know about how the system might instantiate, given the constraints of our perspective.

Example — Quantum:

A physicist assigns a 50% probability for a particle to be found in region A. This probability is not the particle “half-existing” there; it is a reflection of what the physicist can predict about the particle’s behaviour relative to the system’s constraints. The particle’s readiness, by contrast, already supports particular outcomes, independent of any measurement.

Example — Biological:

A seed has readiness to germinate under suitable conditions. Its inclination might bias it toward sprouting in well-lit soil; its ability encompasses the metabolic and structural competence to do so. A gardener’s probability estimate — “70% chance of germination”—reflects knowledge of conditions and variability, not a feature of the seed’s ontic potential.

Example — Social:

A society has readiness to enact a policy through its institutions. Its inclination is cultural preference or normative leaning; its ability is the structural competence of its bureaucracies, technologies, and networks. Analysts’ probability models predict likely outcomes based on partial knowledge; they do not add potential to reality but describe it from a constrained perspective.

---

3. The relational asymmetry

Readiness and probability occupy orthogonal orientations:

• Readiness: the ontic posture of potential, how reality leans forward into becoming.

• Probability: the epistemic account of potential, how observers reflect backward on uncertainty.

Confusions arise when probability is treated as if it were readiness — when a model of ignorance is mistaken for an ontic statement. Keeping the distinction clear allows us to preserve both the actual dynamics of potential and the limits of our predictive models.

---

4. Why it matters

By distinguishing readiness and probability:

1. We restore the ontic integrity of potential, dissolving paradoxes like “quantum indeterminacy” as a property of reality rather than a measure of knowledge.

2. We can describe processes across scales — quantum, biological, social — in a unified relational framework.

3. We clarify that potential is both real and knowable, but in different registers: readiness is real, probability is knowable.

---

5. Towards a unified view

Potential is thus two-faced, not divided. Readiness inclines and composes; probability measures and reflects. Together, they allow a coherent discourse of possibility: one grounded in the ontic fabric of reality, the other in our epistemic access to it.

Where readiness leans, probability models the ways we might anticipate its leanings. The relational cosmos is never uncertain in itself; it is ready, poised, and competent. Uncertainty belongs to those who observe it.

---

Coda: Readiness, Ability, and the Measure of Potential

The distinction between readiness and probability finds its natural home in the framework we explored through inclination and ability.

• Readiness remains the potential — the ontic structure of reality, inclining and capable, always poised for actualisation.

• Inclination and ability are its complementary facets: inclination is the lean, ability is the competence to sustain that lean.

• Probability, by contrast, is our epistemic lens: the reflection of what a construal can anticipate about how readiness may be instantiated.

Viewed this way, the universe does not “choose” among probabilities; it leans with readiness, instantiating its inclinations through its abilities. Probabilities only arise when an observer models that lean — when epistemic projection meets ontic potential.

By integrating readiness, inclination, ability, and probability into one relational field, we achieve a unified vision of potential: one that is real, structured, and directed, yet accessible only partially through knowledge.

This relational architecture dissolves longstanding confusions, clarifying both the possibility that reality holds and the limits of what we can know about it.