The previous post argued that science does not merely operate within a fixed space of possibility, but actively reshapes what can be thought, asked, and instantiated.
This post names the consequence of that claim.
Possibility itself evolves.
What it does not mean
To speak of the evolution of possibility is immediately to risk misunderstanding.
It does not mean:
that reality itself flickers in and out of existence,
that anything can become possible at any time,
or that history is driven by a hidden teleology pushing toward improvement.
Nor does it mean that possibility evolves in the way organisms do.
There is no underlying population of possibilities competing for survival.
What evolves is not which possibilities are realised, but the structure of what can be realised at all.
Possibility as structured
From within a relational ontology, possibility is never an amorphous cloud of options.
It is always structured by systems:
by distinctions that can be drawn,
by relations that can hold,
by constraints that delimit admissible actualisation.
A system, understood as structured potential, defines a topology of possibility. It specifies neighbourhoods, boundaries, continuities, and breaks — not metaphorically, but functionally.
When such systems change, the topology of possibility changes with them.
How possibility evolves
Possibility evolves when:
new systems of construal emerge,
new forms of coordination stabilise,
new cuts become repeatable,
and new distinctions matter.
Scientific practice is one of the most powerful engines of this transformation.
By introducing new experimental cuts, new modelling practices, and new semiotic resources, science does not merely explore an existing space. It re‑topologises it.
Some regions of possibility become densely structured and stable. Others dissolve or become irrelevant. Entire dimensions of variation can appear or disappear.
Revolutions reconsidered
Scientific revolutions are often described as radical changes in belief.
From the perspective developed here, they are better understood as reorganisations of possibility.
What changes is not just what scientists think is true, but:
what can count as a phenomenon,
what kinds of explanations are admissible,
what distinctions are intelligible,
and what failures are even visible.
After such a shift, the previous space of possibility cannot simply be recovered. It has been re-cut.
Why this is not progress
The language of progress is tempting here, but misleading.
To say that possibility evolves is not to say that it improves.
Evolution, in this sense, has no direction guaranteed in advance. New possibilities enable new forms of understanding, but also close off others. Gains are inseparable from losses.
Scientific change is therefore not a march toward completeness, but a sequence of reorientations — each opening some paths while foreclosing others.
Science within the evolution of possibility
Science does not stand outside this process, observing it from above.
It is one of the practices through which the evolution of possibility occurs.
Its power lies not in mirroring reality, but in its capacity to:
stabilise new systems of constraint,
coordinate construal across communities,
and hold novel cuts steady long enough for phenomena to recur.
Through this work, science alters the conditions under which meaning, explanation, and orientation are possible.
Toward orientation
If science participates in the evolution of possibility, then it does more than generate knowledge.
It generates orientation.
It reshapes how the world can be encountered, navigated, and made sense of — often without acknowledging that this is what it is doing.
The next post turns to this unacknowledged function, asking how science produces myths not as false stories, but as stabilisations of orientation within possibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment