The subject encounters reality through uncertainty, and it is impossible to eliminate it once and for all. This is not merely a consequence of incomplete knowledge. Uncertainty arises within the very structure of action: at the moment of decision, the result does not yet exist, and the subject’s action will become a new cause in a changing reality.
Minimal Definition
Uncertainty is a relation of the subject to reality in which available knowledge and the current state do not allow one to establish unambiguously which of the possible states of reality will be realized or what result will follow from an action.
This is a working definition, not a final one. Like any definition, it is a formalism: it fixes a distinction for a particular task and makes no claim to absolute rigor (see Definition).
Uncertainty Is Not Reducible to Lack of Knowledge
At the foundation of uncertainty, it is important to distinguish two cases.
Epistemic uncertainty is uncertainty in the subject’s knowledge of reality. Determinacy may already exist, but the subject has not yet obtained it: it may be possible to measure, investigate, or refine a model. At the same time, access to this knowledge may not be achievable in practice.
Ontological uncertainty is uncertainty in reality itself. The result, the space of possibilities, or the structure within which determinacy is to arise may remain undetermined. They cannot be discovered as ready-made objects: even complete knowledge of the initial conditions does not turn determinacy that has not yet arisen into an already existing fact.
Hence the main thesis:
Uncertainty is not reducible to lack of knowledge. Some of its sources are structural and cannot be eliminated by any amount of knowledge.
This difference manifests in several forms:
- uncertainty of knowledge: what is unknown already exists; further measurements, research, and refinement of the model are possible here;
- uncertainty of result: the result does not yet exist; it must arise through action;
- uncertainty of causality: an action enters a system of other causes, so the same operation in different states of reality may lead to different consequences;
- uncertainty of the future: the future is not given as a pre-filled table of events; subjects make decisions, change one another, and participate in the emergence of the next state of reality.
Three Layers of Uncertainty
Uncertainty concerns more than the question “what will happen?” It has at least three layers. This is a different dimension from the forms described above: the forms describe where uncertainty manifests itself, whereas the layers describe what exactly the subject does not know.
1. Uncertainty of state. The subject does not know what will happen: one of the possible states A, B, C, X… will be realized.
2. Uncertainty of the existence of possibilities. The subject does not even know the complete set of possible states. They suppose {A, B, C}, yet X emerges, which was not in their model at all.
3. Uncertainty of significance. Even if the subject correctly foresaw X, they may not know what place X will occupy in relation to their goal. Today: X → obstructs the goal. Later: X → opened a path toward the goal.
The third layer is the “second floor” of uncertainty: the subject may be unaware not only of the future state but also of the future significance of that state. They do not occupy a position outside time from which all consequences can be seen. Therefore, uncertainty cannot be divided in advance into “favorable / unfavorable”: the evaluation of a state may change together with the subject’s system of distinctions (see Risk).
Boundaries of the Concept
To prevent the definition from becoming diffuse, uncertainty must be distinguished from neighboring concepts.
- Uncertainty ≠ risk. Risk derives from the subject’s relation to uncertainty and a goal: a possible future state distinguished by the subject as unfavorable in relation to the goal (see Risk). The very same uncertainty is simultaneously a space of choice, action, and creativity.
- Uncertainty ≠ probability. Probability is a way of measuring uncertainty within a model that assumes a distribution of possible outcomes. Uncertainty remains outside the model.
- Uncertainty ≠ randomness. Randomness describes a property of a process; uncertainty describes a relation of the subject to reality in which the future state has not been established.
- Uncertainty ≠ chaos. Chaos is the absence of order; uncertainty is the absence of unambiguous determination. Order may be uncertain, and chaos may be predictable within its boundaries.
Action Begins Before the Result Is Ready
If the result already exists in its entirety and is accessible to the subject, what remains is primarily execution: the known sequence of operations must be applied correctly. But in actual action, the subject chooses with incomplete knowledge and enters a causal situation that will continue to develop after the choice.
Action therefore cannot be described by a simple chain:
state A → action B → guaranteed result C.
A more accurate structure looks like this:
subject → desired result → current state → decision → action → observation of the result → distinction of the deviation → new decision.
A decision is not the final point of analysis. It opens up a new portion of reality that must once again be observed and distinguished.
Management Exists Because of Uncertainty
Management does not destroy uncertainty; it acts within uncertainty. If the future were fully determined and accessible to the subject in advance, management would be reduced almost entirely to executing a ready-made algorithm. There would be no need to choose a direction, account for deviations, or reconsider the manner of acting.
Risks, dependencies, forecasting, control, feedback, and corrective actions are not defects of planning. They are ways of working with a reality that does not hand the future to the subject in advance.
This yields an important distinction:
A plan is not a description of a guaranteed future but an organized hypothesis for action.
A plan sets out a desired state and an order for approaching it, but it preserves the need to observe what actually happens. Otherwise, it becomes a substitution of reality with one’s own scheme.
The Goal Is Set by the Subject
A goal cannot be understood as a point that already exists somewhere in external reality and that an organization must correctly reach. A goal arises through the subject’s distinction: the subject singles out a desired state, recognizes its significance, and organizes activity to change reality in its direction.
This does not mean that the goal is arbitrary or that the subject fully controls the path toward it. Reality offers resistance, other subjects have their own goals, and the consequences of an action may differ from the intention. But resistance does not negate the authorship of the goal or the choice of direction.
It is therefore necessary to distinguish:
- goal: the desired state chosen by the subject;
- path: the sequence of actions and conditions for achieving it;
- result: the state that actually emerged;
- deviation: the difference between what was desired and what emerged;
- correction: a new decision made after observing the result.
A goal does not guarantee a result. It organizes the space of decisions.
Uncertainty and Responsibility
When a manager says, “the result will be ready on September 1,” they make a statement about the future. Such a statement may be a commitment, a forecast, or a working agreement; its precise status depends on the context. But in no case does it turn the future into an already existing fact.
If there is a dependency capable of undermining the result, it must enter the management model: the condition must be named, its owner identified, its consequences assessed, and a way of monitoring it established. One cannot honestly promise a result while concealing uncertainty about the path behind a claim that the result is inevitable.
At the same time, uncertainty of the result does not mean that all responsibility disappears. Responsibility follows from choice and initiated causality, not automatically from every consequence. The subject is responsible for the decisions made, the manner of action, and the conditions within their competence and control; they do not become the source of other people’s decisions merely because the result was uncertain.
Risk follows not the result but the choice.
This formula does not promise the subject total control. It distinguishes their own domain of action from what was generated by other causes.
Feedback Instead of a Promise of Control
Since the result is not given in advance, the subject needs feedback. It connects intention to the actual state, preventing the goal from completely replacing observation.
The action cycle can be represented as follows:
identify a goal → describe the current state → choose an action → accept the risk → observe the consequences → compare the result with the goal → correct the action or the goal itself.
The final step is particularly important. Sometimes a deviation shows that the action was insufficient. Sometimes it reveals that the original model was mistaken. And sometimes the subject revisits the goal itself because the course of action has revealed that the goal was someone else’s, was unattainable, or no longer corresponds to reality.
Subjecthood manifests itself not in the ability never to make a mistake, but in the ability not to merge with one’s own first hypothesis.
Uncertainty as a Space of Freedom
In a completely predetermined reality, there is practically nothing for the subject to decide. What remains is execution: each state follows unambiguously from the preceding one, while choice becomes merely a name for a transition determined in advance.
Uncertainty opens the space of decision. It means that between the current state and the future result there is not one ready-made line, but a multiplicity of possibilities constrained by conditions, resources, consequences, and the actions of other subjects.
Freedom here does not mean the absence of causes. It means the possibility of taking a position in relation to causes: seeing the conditions, choosing a response, altering a trajectory, and accepting the consequences of one’s own choice. Causes do not disappear, but the subject ceases to be merely a point through which they pass automatically.
The space of uncertainty is simultaneously the space of decision.
The same uncertainty is a space of choice, action, creativity, the emergence of the new, the transformation of the subject themselves, and the emergence of new forms. The habitual treatment of uncertainty exclusively as “risk” is therefore one-sided: risk is only one form of the subject’s relation to uncertainty.
To destroy uncertainty completely would be to destroy not only risk but also the very possibility of the new. The subject acts because reality is not yet fully determined, and through distinction and action creates new determinacy within it. This is also connected with choice as a transformation of the space of possibilities: Choice as a Transformation of the Space of Possibilities.
Distinction and Form
Uncertainty precedes form, not in the chronological sense, but structurally: until a distinction is made, form has not yet arisen.
Form is a fixed distinction.
The subject encounters uncertainty and draws a distinction. The distinction is fixed. A form arises:
uncertainty → subject → distinction → form.
The order of the first elements needs clarification here. The subject is primary: they stand before uncertainty rather than arising as its derivative. Through distinction, the subject transforms part of uncertainty into determinacy, and this determinacy is fixed as form. The subject’s activity can therefore be defined in a single movement:
The subject’s activity is the production of determinacy out of uncertainty through distinction and action.
The determinacy thus created does not destroy uncertainty as such. The subject fixes only a particular distinction and creates one form, while around it an open space for further distinctions remains.
Finally, the connection between uncertainty and the subject’s existence requires attention. We must distinguish two meanings: existence as the very fact of the subject’s being, and existence as an acting, distinguishing, and free subject. In the second sense, the connection with uncertainty is almost immediate: the subject remains a subject so long as there is room for distinction and choice, and that room exists precisely where reality is not yet fully determined.
Axiom of Transition
Uncertainty and subjecthood can be joined into one sequence:
uncertainty → necessity of choice → the subject’s action → transformation of reality → new result → new uncertainty.
Every action reduces one uncertainty but creates others. Once a project is launched, information about demand becomes available, but new dependencies arise. After a decision is made, the direction becomes clearer, yet consequences appear that were absent from the initial situation. Reality does not attain final transparency: it changes along with action.
Subjecthood, therefore, is not a victory over uncertainty or the attainment of complete knowledge. It is the ability to act, observe, distinguish, and choose again in a world that continues to become.
Conclusion
Uncertainty is not a shortcoming that can one day be eliminated by the correct model. It belongs to the very structure of action: the future does not yet exist, the causal situation continues to change, and the subject’s action becomes part of the subsequent state of reality.
Management is therefore not the production of a guarantee. It is the organization of successive choices, observations, and corrections. The goal is set by the subject, the path is tested through feedback, risk is related to choice, and the result is recognized as the state that has actually emerged rather than a form promised in advance.
The subject acts not after uncertainty has been eliminated, but precisely because uncertainty leaves room for decision.
Related Materials
- Choice as a Transformation of the Space of Possibilities — choice as the transformation of one possibility into actuality and the closing of a fork in the road.
- Risk — risk as a distinguished possible state unfavorable in relation to the subject’s goal.
- Causality — the subject’s action as a new cause in changing reality.
- Definition — the status of definitions: any formalism, not final truth.
