When two worlds appear to disagree, it is tempting to speak of error, misperception, or misrepresentation. This post reframes the phenomenon entirely: worlds do not disagree. Systems fail to couple.
Disagreement as systemic misalignment
Disagreement is often interpreted as a clash between perspectives on a shared reality. Relationally, however, what is happening is not a clash of truths but a failure of coordination between systems. Each system enacts its own world through its own constraints. Where those constraints are incompatible, phenomena that are intelligible in one system fail to emerge in the other.
From this point of view, there is no single reality that one system correctly represents and another misrepresents. There are only partial overlaps, alignments, and mismatches.
Error vs mismatch
It is crucial to distinguish between genuine error and systemic mismatch. Error occurs when a system fails to maintain its own constraints internally. Mismatch occurs when two systems attempt to couple, but their constraints do not align sufficiently. A mismatch is not a failure of knowledge; it is a structural phenomenon.
Translation, communication, and negotiation all attempt to bridge mismatches. They can succeed partially, temporarily, or in specific contexts. But leakage is inevitable because no system can fully occupy another system’s constraints.
Why translation always leaks
Words, codes, and symbols carry constraints from one system to another. Some constraints map cleanly; others conflict with the receiving system’s pre-existing distinctions. As a result, meaning never transfers perfectly. There is always residual difference, untranslatable nuance, or alternative salience.
Recognising this leakage shifts our explanatory frame. We no longer blame the systems or the agents for misunderstanding. We understand that systemic boundaries define what can be shared, and what cannot.
Practical implications
Collisions of worlds are ubiquitous: scientific disciplines, cultural traditions, legal systems, languages, and belief structures all enact worlds that sometimes attempt to intersect. Success in coordination is not a matter of enforcing one world’s constraints over another’s, but of creating aligned cuts where possible.
This perspective reframes debate, conflict, and negotiation. Instead of asking who is right or wrong, we ask: where are the constraints compatible, and where do they diverge irreducibly?
Conclusion
When worlds collide, it is not reality that is fractured. It is coupling that fails. Understanding collision as a structural, constraint-driven phenomenon allows us to navigate difference without invoking misrepresentation or error as default explanations.
The next and final post in this series will complete the arc by examining worlds without foundations, where coordination, alignment, and the very idea of a singular world are relinquished entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment