Summary

Proposes deliberately circular ontology as philosophically superior to foundationalist alternatives. Core insight: interpretation always relies upon existing interpretations—no context-free starting points exist. Rather than defect, circularity embodies fundamental truth about meaning-making.

The Five-Part Circular Ontology:

  1. Property: Observable interpreted by agent
  2. Object: Set of related properties
  3. System: Set of related objects
  4. Process: System that evolves over time
  5. Agent: Process that interprets observables as properties

Circularity explicit: “agent” interprets “property,” but “property” requires “agent” for interpretation. This mutual dependency intentional.

Philosophical Justification:

Circularity as Feature:

  • Traditional ontology seeks linear hierarchies or stable groundings
  • Foundationalism overlooks interpretive conditions axioms presuppose
  • All interpretation demands context; contexts depend on interpretations
  • Embracing circularity acknowledges mutual dependency

Conditionalist Foundation:

  • Aligns with conditionalism: truth/meaning always hinge on implicit contextual conditions
  • No unchallengeable starting points possible
  • Interpretation inherently context-dependent
  • Attempting foundationalism philosophically misguided

Process-Based Agency:

Agent as Process:

  • Defines agency explicitly as type of process
  • Agency dynamic, temporal, interpretative—not static or foundational
  • Continually reconstituting meaning through active interpretation

Alignment with Modern Frameworks:

  • Systems Theory: emergent properties from interactions
  • Active Inference: agents as prediction machines
  • Quantum Branching: observer-dependent reality
  • Emphasizes agency as active participant in meaning-creation

Scalability:

  • Framework scales across complexity levels
  • Minimal computational systems to human cognition
  • Potential artificial intelligences
  • Single framework without separate treatment for different agent types

Addressing Objections:

Observability Critique:

  • What counts as “observable”? Physical? Quantum? Computational? Perceptual?
  • Response: Deliberately left undefined as openness to context-specific clarification
  • Observability itself subject to agent interpretation
  • Returns to conditionalism: meaning hinges on contextual conditions

Agency Narrowness:

  • Is definition too narrow, over-emphasizing sophisticated interpretive capacity?
  • Response: Feature not flaw
  • Framing agency as interpretive processes allows scalability
  • Minimal systems to sophisticated cognition without separate frameworks

Circularity Problem:

  • Traditional objection: circular definitions invalid
  • Response: Circularity unavoidable when dealing with interpretation
  • Making it explicit and transparent more honest than hidden circularities
  • Foundationalism fails by smuggling in unacknowledged interpretive contexts

Philosophical Implications:

Anti-Foundationalism:

  • Rejects search for secure metaphysical foundations
  • No “bottom turtle” upon which everything rests
  • Reality interpretatively structured all the way down

Interpretive Realism:

  • Not subjective idealism (reality independent of any single mind)
  • But reality accessed only through interpretive frameworks
  • Structure of reality and interpretive access mutually constitutive

Coherence Over Correspondence:

  • Truth as coherence within interpretive frameworks
  • Not correspondence to framework-independent reality
  • Frameworks evaluated by internal consistency and practical utility

Meta-Level Insight:

  • Ontology itself interpretive activity
  • No view from nowhere
  • Even minimal ontology makes interpretive commitments
  • Acknowledging this explicitly enhances philosophical clarity

Connections to Broader Project:

Foundation for Later Work:

  • Minimal ontology enables discussion of agency without metaphysical baggage
  • Supports agent-relative ethics (no objective “view from nowhere”)
  • Enables axionic alignment (agents interpreting own constraints)

Methodological Commitment:

  • Transparency about philosophical commitments
  • Explicit acknowledgment of interpretive conditions
  • Parsimony: minimal necessary categories

Practical Utility:

  • Provides workable framework for discussing complex systems
  • Avoids metaphysical debates about “ultimate reality”
  • Focuses on relationships and processes rather than substances

Key Concepts

  • Circular ontology – Deliberately self-referential categorical structure
  • Interpretive dependency – All meaning requires interpretive context
  • Agent as process – Agency as dynamic temporal activity not substance
  • Observable – Context-dependent, agent-interpreted feature
  • Property/object/system/process/agent – Five mutually defining categories
  • Anti-foundationalism – Rejection of secure metaphysical groundings
  • Scalable agency – Framework applying across complexity levels
  • Conditionalist ontology – Being itself interpretatively structured

Evolution Notes

  • Provides minimal ontology for entire axionic project
  • Avoids getting bogged down in metaphysical debates
  • Enables focus on agency, ethics, alignment without prior commitments
  • Shows influence of Wittgenstein (meaning as use), Quine (ontological relativity)
  • Presages agent-relative frameworks developed later
  • Demonstrates philosophical parsimony as methodological virtue
  • Important for AI: agents and interpretive processes, not minds vs machines
  • Circular but not vicious: acknowledged circularity vs hidden assumptions

Tags

Cross-References

Open Questions

  • Can truly minimal agents (thermostats, bacteria) count as “interpretive”?
  • What’s the relationship between this ontology and physics?
  • Does circularity eliminate possibility of ontological progress?
  • How does this ontology handle mathematical/logical objects?
  • Can multiple circular ontologies be incommensurable?
  • What grounds preference for this particular circular structure?
  • How does emergence fit into process-based framework?
  • Does agent-interpretation go all the way down (panpsychism)?