Universal Theory of Constrained Possibility

Universal Theory of Constrained Possibility (Prefoundational Specification) This work presents the prefoundational specification of the Universal Theory of Constrained Possibility, a formal framework for reasoning about systems in which futures are shaped, restricted, or rendered impossible by irreversible actions and simultaneous constraints. The theory treats meaning, institutions, decision processes, and other coherence-bearing systems as instances of a more general structure: constrained transition systems with path-level invariants. Rather than modeling possibility as a static space of options, the framework emphasizes history-dependence, irreversibility, and constraint intersection as the primary determinants of what futures remain admissible. Core formal components introduced in this release: Minimal constrained transition object: 𝓜 = (V, ⇒, κ) (admissibility governed by non-local path constraints) Three-layer constraint intersection (indicative, relational, semantic): 𝓛∩(h) = 𝓛I(h) ∩ 𝓛R(h) ∩ 𝓛S(h) Breakdown (semantic hazard) condition: ∃ p ∈ 𝓛m(v) such that p ∉ 𝓛∩(v) Constructor axioms (safety, maximality under constraint, integrity/non-smoothing, refusal): Safety: 𝓛m(v) ⊆ 𝓛∩(v) Governance/refusal: refuse if |𝓛∩(v)| < τ Closure topology handle and qualitative profile: Σλ(v) = (B, C, H) (branching potential, closure pressure, hysteresis/commitment residue) This release is intentionally prefoundational: it provides the minimum formal geometry required to correctly understand, diagnose, and reason about constrained possibility across domains, without prescribing domain-specific implementations. It is sufficient for conceptual alignment, theoretical evaluation, and early system design, while leaving operational instantiation and domain typing to subsequent work. Applicable domains include meaning and interpretation, institutional stability, governance, crisis decision-making, and any context in which actions permanently alter the space of viable futures. Ethical Invariants & Conditions of Legitimate Use (Summary) Non-centralization of interpretive authority: no single actor, institution, model, or platform may become the source of meaning; interpretation must remain distributed, contestable, and reviewable. Governance before capability: no increase in interpretive power without corresponding governance, refusal logic, and oversight. Refusal is a primary safety function: the system must be able to not-interpret under defined conditions; non-interpretation is protective, not an error state. No coercive translation of meaning: fused meaning may not be directly converted into enforcement, punishment, eligibility decisions, or exclusionary thresholds. Interpretation must not collapse into prescription: the system must not present fused meaning as singular, default, or inevitable. Uncertainty must remain visible: ambiguity, confidence bounds, and stability limits must be legible; meaning may not be presented as settled when contingent. Community meaning has standing: local/lived interpretation may not be erased by technical synthesis. No silent expansion of scope: changes in domain/use/audience require explicit declaration, governance review, and opt-in participation. Public-good priority: uses that primarily benefit institutional control or liability shielding at the expense of public clarity are out of bounds. The framework must be able to say “we don’t know”: if ambiguity cannot be preserved without pressure to resolve, interpretation must stop. Canonical reference: hazardsemantics.org/prefoundational