Few questions feel as quietly metaphysical as this one. We speak easily of what could happen—alternative outcomes, unrealised futures, paths not taken. From this everyday fluency arises a deeper question: do these possibilities exist in any sense prior to their actualisation?
“Are possibilities real before they happen?” appears to ask whether the unrealised has a kind of being.
But this framing depends on a prior move: treating possibility as if it were a collection of pre-formed entities awaiting selection.
Once that move is examined, the question no longer reveals a hidden layer of reality. It exposes a familiar distortion: the reification of potential into instance-like objects.
1. The surface form of the question
“Are possibilities real before they happen?”
In its everyday philosophical form, this asks:
- whether alternative outcomes exist prior to their occurrence
- whether the future is already structured as a set of real options
- whether unrealised possibilities have ontological status
- whether actuality is the selection of one among many pre-existing alternatives
It presupposes:
- that possibilities are things that can exist
- that they can exist prior to actualisation
- that reality includes both actual and merely possible entities
2. Hidden ontological commitments
For the question to stabilise, several assumptions must already be in place:
- that potential can be treated as a collection of discrete items
- that possibilities are comparable to actual events in kind
- that there is a domain in which unrealised alternatives reside
- that actualisation is a selection process over pre-existing options
- that it is meaningful to ask where possibilities “are” before they happen
These assumptions convert structured potential into a population of quasi-objects.
3. Stratal misalignment
Within relational ontology, the distortion involves reification, temporal projection, and instantiation-collapse.
(a) Reification of possibility
Possibilities are treated as things.
- instead of features of structured potential
- they become entities that could exist independently
(b) Temporal projection of potential
Potential is projected into a prior temporal domain.
- as if possibilities exist before their actualisation
- this imposes a timeline onto what is not itself temporal in that sense
(c) Collapse of potential into instance
The distinction between system and instance is erased.
- structured potential (what can be actualised under constraint)
- is treated as if it were already a set of actual or quasi-actual instances
4. Relational re-description
If we remain within relational ontology, possibilities are not pre-existing entities. They are aspects of structured potential within systems.
More precisely:
- systems define a space of potential variation under constraint
- this potential is not a set of discrete pre-formed outcomes
- it is a structured field of what can be actualised
- instantiation is not the selection of an already-existing possibility
- it is the actualisation of one trajectory within that structured potential
From this perspective:
- possibilities do not exist as things before they happen
- they are relational features of systems prior to instantiation
- they are not located anywhere, nor do they wait to be realised
5. Dissolution of the problem-space
Once possibility is no longer reified, the question “Are possibilities real before they happen?” loses its structure.
It depends on:
- treating possibilities as entities
- projecting them into a temporal “before”
- collapsing structured potential into discrete instances
- assuming actualisation selects from a pre-existing set
If these assumptions are withdrawn, there is no domain of unrealised objects to evaluate.
What disappears is not possibility, but the expectation that it must take the form of existence.
6. Residual attraction
The persistence of the question is easy to understand.
It is sustained by:
- everyday language (“many possibilities were open”)
- decision-making frameworks that treat options as selectable items
- modal logic and possible-worlds semantics
- the intuitive sense that the future “contains” alternatives
Most importantly, possibility feels object-like:
- we enumerate options
- we compare them
- we imagine them as if they were already formed
But this is a modelling convenience, not an ontological commitment.
Closing remark
“Are possibilities real before they happen?” appears to ask whether unrealised alternatives have a kind of existence.
Once these moves are undone, possibility is not diminished.
No comments:
Post a Comment