The Interface of Potential and Probability — Revisiting Indeterminacy: 2 Epistemic Structure: Knowing and Not-Knowing in the Field

If inclination and ability define the probabilistic tendencies of the field, the relational topology is further shaped by epistemic structure: the organisation of what can be known, anticipated, or constrained. Knowledge is not merely a passive reflection of reality; it is a relational feature of readiness, structuring potential in ways that guide, limit, and enable actualisation.

Epistemic structure clarifies the distinction between ontic uncertainty — the intrinsic indeterminacy of potential — and epistemic uncertainty — the incompleteness or limits of knowledge about the field. Both are relational: neither exists independently of the topology of readiness, and both affect how inclinations and abilities manifest.

1 — Relational Constraints on Knowing

In a continuous field of readiness, knowledge is itself a pattern of alignment and resonance. Observers, instruments, and symbolic systems interact with the field, producing relational constraints that modulate inclinations. Some folds are more likely to be “visible” or stabilised because the epistemic structure channels attention, measurement, or interpretation toward them.

Epistemic structure therefore acts as a probabilistic filter. It does not create inclinations ex nihilo, but it shapes which tendencies are reinforced, which are suppressed, and which remain uncertain. Knowledge organizes potential without imposing rigid determinacy.

2 — Epistemic vs. Ontic Indeterminacy

Ontic indeterminacy refers to the inherent openness of the field: the probabilistic spread of possible actualisations defined by inclination and ability. Epistemic indeterminacy arises when relational constraints — what can be known, anticipated, or measured — are incomplete.

These forms of uncertainty are intertwined. The field’s topology determines what is epistemically accessible: some potential is inherently unknowable from a given perspective. Conversely, epistemic limitations influence which inclinations effectively manifest, guiding the probabilistic distribution of outcomes within the relational topology.

3 — Probabilistic Topology of Knowing

From this perspective, probability is relationally grounded. It is not an abstract number but a measure of structured potential: the likelihood that a particular fold will stabilise given the interplay of inclination, ability, and epistemic constraints. The field is probabilistic because the relational constraints are uneven, contextual, and perspectival.

A fold’s probability is therefore a function of multiple interacting dimensions:

• Local inclinations and their gradient strength

• Resonance and alignment with neighbouring tendencies

• Relational capacities (abilities) that enable actualisation

• Epistemic structures that amplify, filter, or obscure certain possibilities

4 — Structured Potential as Grammar of Becoming

The relational interface between inclination, ability, and epistemic structure forms the foundation for a grammar of becoming. Probability emerges as the syntax through which potential expresses itself: a constrained set of tendencies articulated in the topology of readiness.

This grammar preserves coherence while allowing indeterminacy. It reconciles openness with structure: the field is never rigidly determined, yet it is never purely random. Actualisation is guided, shaped, and constrained by relational patterns, giving rise to probabilistic regularities that are both emergent and perspectival.

5 — Toward Relational Probability

With epistemic structure in place, we are ready to treat probability itself as a relational phenomenon. Probability is not a metaphysical property of the world nor a mere reflection of ignorance; it is a measure of the constraints and affordances that the relational topology imposes on potential.

The next post will explore this perspective in depth, developing probabilistic potential as the interface of relational constraints, readiness, and structured indeterminacy — a framework in which possibility is always relationally articulated and actualisation is always perspectival.