Scientific thought is remarkably good at living with uncertainty. Error bars, confidence intervals, stochastic models, and probabilistic laws are routine. What it does not easily tolerate is incompleteness.
This distinction matters more than is usually acknowledged.
Uncertainty Is Admissible
Uncertainty is treated as a temporary condition: a measure of what is not yet known, not yet resolved, not yet observed. It is a function of limited data, noisy instruments, or insufficient refinement.
Because uncertainty is framed as remediable, it does not threaten the ideal of explanation. It motivates further work.
Incompleteness does something else.
Incompleteness as Threat
Incompleteness is not about missing information. It is about the impossibility of closure.
A theory may be internally consistent, empirically successful, and mathematically precise — and still be unable, in principle, to exhaust the domain it addresses.
Scientific thought has historically struggled here.
The Quiet Reinterpretation
When incompleteness appears, it is rarely accepted on its own terms. It is quietly reinterpreted as something else:
-
as provisional ignorance
-
as dependence on deeper theory
-
as artefact of scale or approximation
-
as limitation of formalism rather than of description
-
as evidence that the “real” explanation lies elsewhere
In each case, incompleteness is displaced.
What cannot be completed is treated as not yet complete.
Formal Success, Ontological Discomfort
The sciences have repeatedly encountered results that force incompleteness into view without undermining formal success.
The response is telling.
Rather than questioning the expectation of completeness, scientific thought often preserves it by multiplication: more parameters, more levels, more mechanisms, more worlds, more structure.
The explanatory edifice grows — but closure remains deferred.
Why Incompleteness Is Hard to Bear
Completeness promises finality. It offers the reassurance that, in principle, nothing essential escapes description.
Incompleteness threatens this promise. It suggests that no matter how refined the theory, something constitutive will remain outside its reach — not because it is hidden, but because description itself is part of what brings phenomena into being.
The Relational Stance
Relational ontology treats incompleteness not as a defect, but as a condition.
A description does not fail because it cannot say everything. It succeeds because it says something — by cutting a field of possibility in a particular way.
No description can be complete, because no description is neutral. Each instantiation brings some possibilities into actuality and leaves others unactualised.
The Cost of Refusal
When incompleteness is intolerable, scientific explanation is forced into compensatory strategies:
-
appeals to underlying totalities
-
promises of ultimate theories
-
deferral to infinite limits
-
replacement of description with simulation
-
conflation of explanatory power with exhaustiveness
These strategies are not illegitimate. But they do something quietly consequential.
They erase the distinction between what can be described and what can be actualised.
Incompleteness and Meaning
Meaning depends on incompleteness.
If a description exhausted its domain, it would leave nothing open — no contrast, no relevance, no selection. Meaning arises because description is partial, because it makes a difference rather than a mirror.
Scientific thought often treats this partiality as a weakness.
Relational ontology treats it as generative.
What This Post Refuses to Do
This post does not argue that science should abandon the search for deeper explanations. It does not celebrate ignorance. It does not deny the value of unification.
It names a pattern: the repeated discomfort with the idea that explanation might be structurally incomplete, not accidentally unfinished.
Incompleteness as Condition, Not Failure
To tolerate incompleteness is not to give up on understanding. It is to accept that understanding does not converge on totality.
Scientific descriptions do not approach the world asymptotically from outside. They participate in its articulation from within.
Incompleteness is the mark of that participation.
Looking Ahead
The next intolerance follows directly from this one.
If descriptions are incomplete, then identities cannot be fully preserved across time. What persists must do so without being fully specified.
This is difficult to bear.
The next post will address The Intolerance of Non-Identity — the unease scientific thought displays when things do not remain fully themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment