Across the preceding posts, three presuppositions of mathematics have been brought into view: stability, separability, and invariance. Each, on its own, marks a condition under which formal description can gain traction. Taken together, they do something stronger.
They define a space.
Not a space in the mathematical sense—though mathematics will happily formalise it—but a conceptual space within which mathematics itself is possible.
Mathematics as a constrained mode of access
Mathematics is often treated as the most general language available for describing reality. Its limits are therefore assumed to coincide with the limits of intelligibility.
From a relational-ontological perspective, this assumption must be inverted.
Mathematics is not maximally general. It is maximally disciplined. It operates only where relations can be:
stabilised as repeatable cuts,
decomposed into separable relata,
held invariant across admissible transformations.
Where these conditions jointly obtain, mathematics does not merely apply—it flourishes. Where any one of them fails, mathematics does not gradually weaken; it exits the field altogether.
The joint constraint
It is tempting to treat stability, separability, and invariance as independent requirements. In practice, they form a tightly coupled system.
Stability without separability yields persistent phenomena that resist variable-based description.
Separability without stability yields decompositions that cannot be re-instantiated.
Stability and separability without invariance yield formalisms that multiply without convergence.
Only where all three are simultaneously secured does a mathematically tractable domain emerge.
This explains why mathematical success often feels discontinuous. Systems are not more or less mathematical in a smooth gradient. They either fall within the joint constraint—or they do not.
The space defined
We can now describe, in abstract terms, the space of the mathematically possible.
It is the region of relational becoming where:
instances can be actualised without destabilising the relations they instantiate,
relata can be individuated without dissolving the relations that constitute them,
transformations can be applied without reconstituting the phenomenon itself.
Within this space, relations can be rendered as structure. Outside it, relations remain relations—but refuse structural capture.
Why this space feels universal
Historically, mathematics has been astonishingly successful in domains where coordination, prediction, and control are paramount. These domains are not random. They are precisely those in which relational systems can be stabilised, separated, and transformed without remainder.
Over time, this success has been mistaken for universality.
The error is subtle. Because mathematics works so well where its presuppositions are satisfied, it becomes easy to assume that those presuppositions are properties of reality itself rather than conditions we impose in order to coordinate with it.
The space of the mathematically possible thus masquerades as the space of the real.
Outside the space
What lies outside this space is not chaos, irrationality, or ineffability. It is relational becoming that cannot be disciplined into structure without loss.
Here we find:
phenomena whose identity shifts with scale or perspective,
relations that constitute their relata anew with each cut,
transformations that alter what there is rather than how it is described.
Such domains may still be intelligible, navigable, and meaningful. They may even be describable—but not exhaustively, and not without remainder.
Mathematics does not fail here. It is simply no longer the right mode of access.
Mathematical limits as ontological clues
Seen this way, the limits of mathematics are not embarrassments to be apologised for. They are clues to the structure of relational reality.
They tell us:
where cuts can be held,
where individuation can be stabilised,
where transformation preserves rather than remakes.
And, equally importantly, they tell us where these achievements cannot be sustained.
From limits to distinction
At this point, a deeper pattern should be visible.
Every presupposition examined—stability, separability, invariance—marks a way in which relation is rendered as structure. Mathematical success is the success of this rendering. Mathematical breakdown is its refusal.
To make sense of this refusal fully requires one final distinction, more fundamental than any yet discussed: the distinction between relation and structure itself.
In the final post of this series, I will argue that this distinction underwrites everything said so far—and that confusing the two is the deepest source of our perplexity about the limits of mathematics.
No comments:
Post a Comment