We’ve all sat with the discomfort of uncertain futures : either in a job search, romantic relationships or health scares. The human mind dislikes limbo. It pushes for guarantees or failing that sinks into despair.

Yet many philosophical traditions and frameworks all converge on one basic truth:

Uncertainty is the normal texture of reality, not a defect and inner freedom comes from working with that texture rather than freeing from it.

When the mind drops its war on ambiguity, cognitive load falls, creativity rises, and emotional turbulence calms. A low tolerance for uncertainty, by contrast, is a proven recipe for anxiety, unhappiness, and stalled decision‑making.

I want to explore various methods or frameworks I’ve found useful to handle uncertainty.

Meaningness by David Chapman

Chapman’s meaningless project starts with a deceptively simple observation : that the world is saturated with meaning, but every bit of that meaning is vague, shifting and context bound. Meaning is therefore neither absolute or absent.

Two common mistakes cloud our view.

• Eternalism : “Everything has a fixed cosmic meaning—give me guarantees.”
• Nihilism : “Nothing means anything—why bother, its all uncertain and random”

Chapman’s remedy is the complete stance, which enjoys the playful dance between:

• Pattern : the structures we can rely on.
• Nebulosity : their inevitable fuzziness.

Uncertainty is not a flaw in reality. It is built in nebulosity intertwined with a degree of reliable pattern. You can hold both of these simultaneously. They are inseparable.

Instead of choosing between rigid certainty or despairing randomness, the complete stance embraces both:

“Some things are clear, others aren’t—what’s a helpful next step?”

Let’s take a few examples.

1. Discomfort about uncertainty about jobs

Recognising that job markets are partly patterned (skills in demand) and partly nebulous (timing, culture) supports iterative probing rather than all-or-nothing bets.

2. Dating/relationship ambiguity :

Romantic relationships are inherently uncertain. Eternalism tempts us into demanding immediate clarity (‘are we exclusive or not’), while nihilism might whisper that connections don’t really matter, leading us to detach prematurely.

The complete stance encourages a healthier middle ground, acknowledging that intimacy is a dance between reliable patterns (shared values, consistent behaviours) and nebulosity (evolving feelings, situational changes and the inherent messiness of romance).

Rather than forcing premature certainty or retreating into indifference, we embrace incremental discovery, openness to feedback and flexible communication. In doing so, relationships become spaces for mutual exploration rather than anxious evaluation.

3. Health

Many aspects of health are patterned and within our influence—we can exercise, maintain a nutritious diet, practice preventive healthcare, and take recommended supplements. Yet, alongside these patterns lies considerable nebulosity: genetic predispositions, unforeseen illnesses, or random accidents remain unpredictable and beyond our full control. You can hold both pattern and nebulosity together.

Chapman’s view is not a cure to uncertainty in the sense of removing it. But a cure for the suffering that comes from a demand for certainty or despairing from a lack of it. Enjoying the dance of nebulosity and pattern. Certainty and blur. Holding both of these together inherently leads to curiosity.

Ultimately Chapmans view is one of epistemic humility. A middle way between dogmatism and resignation.

After reading Chapman, I keep seeing this everywhere and mentally utter to myself : “ah pattern” or “ah nebulosity”. It’s essentially ‘‘form and emptiness’ in the Buddhist sense.

Breathing in : trace the lines. Breathing out : the blur

Chaos Theory

Chaos theory ¹ studies deterministic systems whose long-term behaviour is effectively unpredictable.  The classic example is Edward Lorenz’s three-equation weather model: round-off a starting value from 0.506127 to 0.506 and, days later, the simulated storm is in a different ocean.  This is the ‘butterfly effect’, that tiny differences in initial conditions amplify exponentially, so after a short predictability horizon the best forecast becomes statistical rather than specific.

Yet these systems are not random.  Their trajectories trace intricate strange attractors that have fractal structure and well-defined Lyapunov exponents (a number that measures how fast nearby paths diverge).  In other words, chaos combines law-governed pattern with practical nebulosity.

Chaos theory supplies a vivid, concrete illustration:

• Eternalist temptation: “Because the equations are deterministic, the system must be exactly predictable—just measure better.” This is ‘LaPlace’s demon’. ²

• Nihilist temptation: “If a butterfly can scramble the weather, everything is random—nothing to rely on.”

  The complete stance keeps them in view simultaneously: “The rules are precise (pattern) and the outcomes blur quickly (nebulosity); therefore I’ll use deterministic models for short forecasts and probabilistic ensembles for the rest.”

That move mirrors how modern meteorology, finance, and epidemiology actually handle chaotic processes: they embrace deterministic models and probabilistic spreads, instead of choosing one and denying the other.

Understanding this leads to a kind of practical humility – Chaos puts a hard ceiling on foresight: after five to ten days, specific weather predictions are futile, a finding that reshaped the entire forecasting industry.  Recognising that limit aligns with Chapman’s advice to drop the fantasy of total control (eternalism) without lapsing into resignation (nihilism).

Chaos theory shows, in equations and clouds alike, exactly what Chapman’s philosophy claims at the human scale: order and blur are inseparable; wisdom lies in seeing both, not in clinging to certainty or surrendering to meaninglessness.

Buddhist frameworks

I’m not a Buddhist, but I’ve found the practices to be incredibly useful in dealing with uncertainty.

You can understand this all at a conceptual level, but it’s different understanding it at an experiential level. What Buddhist practices do is viscerally expose you to these truths at a fundamental experiential level. You embrace uncertainty - lean into the falling.

In leaning in, you viscerally realise “Ah things are really groundless, and that’s ok”.

Observing the constant arising and passing of phenomena, we realise there’s nothing solid to cling to and this recognition brings surprising freedom.

A few practices or reminders I found useful

• ‘Mai nae’ : Ajahn Chah talks about silently reminding himself - ‘mai nae’ - ’not sure’. Quick way to catch an eternalist lunge for guarantees.
• Reading any Pema Chodron. She doesn’t hold back - security is a myth and relaxing into groundlessness reveals vast openness.

What I get from Buddhism is actual practices to remind oneself of the inherent uncertainty of reality. Buddhist impermanence is neither nihilism or fatalism. It’s a middle ground that allows cultivation of an agile mind that can plan, love and create while holding the world lightly

Scientific Skepticism : Feynman on Doubt

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.

The scientific method is built upon embracing doubt. I found Karl Popper and David Deutsch’s views useful in helping me deal with uncertainty. Both are proponents of fallibilism, which says that all knowledge is conjectural, i.e. a best guess (I’m diluting what Deutsch means by a ‘good explanation here’). We are treating every belief as provisional and always open to refutation.

Popper emphasised that because knowledge is conjectural, we should actively seek to refute our beliefs rather than confirm them. This means treating every idea as open to revision and correction.

By embracing uncertainty as a vital part of knowledge acquisition, we continually improve our understanding by deliberately searching for errors. We can use uncertainty itself as a guide, a compass directing us toward better explanations.

Practices to deal with uncertainty

1. Bayesian updating

Try to quantify your beliefs numerically and update them as new evidence emerges. ³ Keep a personal forecast journal where you assign probabilities to your expectations. Revising these numbers regularly as events unfold. This approach helps you calibrate your confidence levels and maintain a flexible mindset.

2. Premortem analysis.

This is what Tim Ferris calls fear setting. Essentially identify the worst case scenario in whatever decision you make. Before making a decision, imagine it’s already failed. Identify potential reasons for failure and proactively address these weaknesses. This exercise helps anticipate and mitigate risks, making uncertainty less intimidating.

Conclusion

Embracing uncertainty doesn’t mean abandoning structure or guidance. It’s about finding the optimal grip : neither gripping too tightly (eternalism) nor letting go completely (nihilism).

The wisdom across these diverse frameworks converges on a simple truth: uncertainty is woven into existence itself. Our freedom comes not from eliminating ambiguity but from dancing with it skilfully, recognising that pattern and nebulosity are two sides of the same coin.

By holding both certainty and uncertainty together, we discover not just intellectual understanding, but a more graceful way of being in an inherently unpredictable world.