We have argued that prediction in a relational ontology means:
-
Mapping density gradients.
-
Detecting threshold proximity.
-
Modelling cascade propagation.
-
Charting post-cascade feasibility.
This grants real predictive traction.
But it does not grant omniscience.
The final task is to clarify:
Why prediction must remain structurally limited — even in a fully lawful topology.
1. Lawfulness Does Not Entail Determinism
Relational ontology is committed to structure.
But structure is not destiny.
A system is a theory of its instances.
A theory defines:
-
What is possible.
-
What is incompatible.
-
What is structurally costly.
It does not specify:
-
Which specific instance will be actualised.
Actualisation remains perspectival.
The cut is lawful — but not uniquely prescribed.
2. Feasibility Is Not Selection
In Post 4 we distinguished:
-
High-feasibility trajectories.
-
Low-feasibility trajectories.
-
Structurally inaccessible trajectories.
But feasibility does not equal inevitability.
Multiple trajectories may remain:
-
Equally compatible.
-
Equally dense.
-
Equally sustainable.
Structure narrows the field.
It does not collapse it to one.
3. Structural Underdetermination
At any moment:
-
The topology constrains.
-
Density gradients bias.
-
Thresholds condition.
-
Cascades reshape.
But within the resulting feasible region, there remains multiplicity.
This multiplicity is not randomness.
It is structural underdetermination.
There are several coherent ways the system may continue.
Prediction therefore identifies:
The contour of viable continuation.
Not the singular future.
4. The Role of Perturbation
Small perturbations can tip the system toward one feasible trajectory rather than another.
But perturbations:
-
Do not create structure.
-
Do not override constraint topology.
-
Operate within feasibility bounds.
They influence selection among viable trajectories.
They do not generate the space of viability itself.
Thus unpredictability often reflects:
-
Micro-level indeterminacy within macro-level constraint.
Not chaos.
Not mysticism.
5. Reflexivity and Prediction Limits
When systems exhibit reflexive meta-condensation:
-
They can reconfigure constraint grammars.
-
They can alter density pathways.
-
They can reorganise coupling structures.
This further limits prediction.
Because prediction must then anticipate:
-
Not just trajectory selection.
-
But shifts in the generative grammar itself.
Reflexivity increases lawful complexity.
It does not abolish structure.
But it widens the horizon of underdetermination.
6. Why Total Prediction Is Impossible
Total prediction would require:
-
Complete mapping of all densities.
-
Perfect knowledge of all couplings.
-
Full anticipation of all perturbations.
-
Exact modelling of reflexive modulation.
Such totality would require:
A perspective outside the topology.
But relational ontology denies such an external vantage.
All modelling occurs within structure.
Prediction is therefore always:
-
Partial.
-
Scale-bound.
-
Perspective-conditioned.
Lawful — but finite.
7. The Proper Scope of Predictive Generativity
What we can legitimately claim:
-
Structural pressure can be diagnosed.
-
Threshold proximity can be recognised.
-
Cascade pathways can be anticipated.
-
Feasibility contours can be mapped.
-
Regions of high generative potential can be identified.
What we cannot claim:
-
Exact events.
-
Exact timing.
-
Unique outcomes.
-
Total determinacy.
Prediction is structural anticipation, not prophetic certainty.
8. The Deep Result
We have shown that:
-
Possibility is structured.
-
Structure generates gradients.
-
Gradients condition thresholds.
-
Thresholds propagate cascades.
-
Cascades reshape topology.
-
Topology delimits feasible trajectories.
-
Feasible trajectories remain multiple.
Thus:
Generativity is lawful without being deterministic.
This is the equilibrium point.
No comments:
Post a Comment