what is "ontology " ?

[Avengium]

Drashner suggested some ideas as a summary, but we can discuss more in this thread. What thing are a must for an article of Ontology on OA?
If we are going to make an article, i think it must be readable, aclaratory. So we can have a clear vision of what is that. And can point people to that article.
So, what do you think are the main points to talk on that article?
And how much different are OA ontology from real life ontology?
Ángel

[stevebowers]

I think the closest practical concept to an OA ontology that we have at the moment is an 'upper level ontology', a kind of programming 'language' that attempts to define 'things' in a formal way.
Here are a selection of upper-level ontologies from Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_onto...ontologies
note that these ontologies are not necessarily intercompatible, a factor that no doubt inspired Anders to use them as the foundation of the Version War.

An upper level ontology must contain formal axioms, domains, definitions and a grammar to arrange the elements into a usable form that can be shared between different agents. Philosophers doubt that any ontology can be perfect, as there will always be room for debate, discussion and ambiguity- but it is the task of an ontology designer to reduce those ambiguities to a minimum.

[Rynn]

A few things an ontology article should probably include:

1) That the major ontologies are archai based so to some extent they are philosophical black boxes. Modosophonts can't really understand how they work.

2) Ontologies are vast metaphilosophical algorithms that, beyond defining objects/agents and their relationships, one can use to derive rules of interaction for cooperation among unintelligible parties.

3) Building on the last points ontologies have been used to construct languages, laws and social structures that allow different mindtypes to live peacefully. Practically speaking when met with an individual one cannot understand one can feed their observations into an ontologically derived software kit and get advice on how to respond.

4) A limitation of ontology is the wide variety of possible outcomes and "garbage in, garbage out"

[Matterplay1]

I believe the best approach is to do what we have done regarding technologies: suggest that OA's "ontology" is something like, but much more extensive and sophisticated and powerful than, what we call ontology today, and then describe it not so much in terms of its mechanisms but in terms of its effects and limits. We cane expect philosophy to advance, no less than technology has, after all.

For comparison, we can achieve fusion today in r/l in destructive and inefficient ways, but our OA setting makes it practical and commonplace as a power source.  Or consider the way that we can conceive of wormholes today in as a theoretical possibility, but in the OA setting they are a regularly used mode of transport and communication. 

I agree we should leave 'ontology', even in OA, as something that is open-ended and still incomplete, perhaps even to archailects. This could be through some broader equivalent to Godel's incompleteness theorem.

The article need not be all that long. In this case, I expect that 'less is more'.

[Avengium]

Hi. I have a first draft for Ontology. This need to include other suggestions proposed in this thread but i wanted to make an early version.

Ontology

Ontology is the study of the existence and the things that exist, their relations, similarities and differences. This is done through a formal naming and classification of the entities that exist.
An ontology consist on a series of axioms (starting points of reasoning), domains (the range of the ontology), definitions and a grammar that articulate the statements of the ontology.
Ontologies as Old Earth understandood it were comparatively in the prehistory of Terragen psychology and it was not until the emergence of the sophont AIs and more and more diverse lifeforms that Ontology creation and importance blossomed with myriads of different interpretations.
Ontologies for the terragen are the algorithms behind the different perspectives of life and different modes of thought, abstract prisms through which they see the cosmos. For the AI and the digital population of the galaxy, an onthology is a software protocol which form the basic foundation for thinking and discourse.

Ontologies can vary hugely from one to another. Ontologies within an specific field of study have a narrower domain than a general ontology, are more practical and more specialized. They also tend to have a reductionist focus.
Ontologies within an ample field of study have wider domains, are more abstract or theoretical and tend to have an holistic focus.

Due to the differences that can appear between different ontologies, terragen developed ontologies to classify other ontologies and translate their meaning to the remaining ones. These are called Upper level ontologies and their domain are the elements that compose other ontologies, their relations and definitions. Upper level ontologies stands on widely accepted axioms and can manage different ontologies as different ways of thinking or different belief systems. These ontologies allows sophonts the understanding of realities highly divergent.

The better the upper ontology, the more diverse the realities that can translate to a familiar mode of thought. The history of terragenkind represents the creation of increasingly encompassing ontologies. But with the creation of each ontology, new modes of thought appeared that resisted classification.
Even to day (y11k) is not clear if terragenkind will develop in the future an all encompassing ontology.

i hope you liked it. Suggestions for the next version.
- General history. As suggested by Drashner.
- clade relations over the history of the setting. (Drashner)
-  Philosophical blackboxes. (Rynn)
- metaphilosophical algorithms. (Rynn)
- Software kit (Rynn)
- Godel's incompleteness theorem. (Stephen Inniss).
- Differences between ontology and memetics.
- Sentient Rights Protocols.

[Avengium]

Any feedback on the first draft? Should i continue with the suggestions or change something first?
Any suggestions that need to be intercalated in the first paragraphs or i can write it in the end of the first draft?

[Rynn]

As there's a lot still to go in I'm going to save feedback for the next draft. As it stands this is a bit of an intro rather than the meat of the topic. Also perhaps split off the new draft into its own thread?

[centurion20000]

<Removed after further thought>

[Avengium]

@Centurion. You still can post here or in another thread with your idea.

[Drashner1]

I thought there was an EG entry under development on this? Perhaps it would be better to have further ontology ideas discussion on that thread? Or maybe in a new one, depending on the subject matter.

Just a thought,

Todd