A Minimal Ontology
Embracing Self-Reference to Escape Foundational Traps
Ontology—the philosophical investigation into the categories and relationships of existence—typically seeks solid foundations: linear hierarchies or stable groundings. But what if we intentionally reject linearity in favor of a carefully constructed circle?
Here's a concise, deliberately circular ontology:
Property: an observable interpreted by an agent.
Object: a set of related properties.
System: a set of related objects.
Process: a system that evolves over time.
Agent: a process that interprets observables as properties.
At first glance, this appears self-referential—and indeed it is, explicitly so. Rather than a defect, this circularity embodies a core philosophical insight: interpretation always relies upon existing interpretations. There are no context-free starting points.
Circularity as Strength
Circular ontologies like this one explicitly confront the Conditionalist insight: All interpretation demands context, and contexts depend on interpretations. Attempting foundationalism—starting from supposedly unchallengeable axioms—is philosophically misguided because it overlooks the interpretive conditions those axioms presuppose. By openly embracing circularity, we acknowledge the mutual dependency of interpretation and context.
Process and Agency
The decision to define "agent" explicitly as a type of "process" underscores agency as dynamic, temporal, and interpretative. Agency isn't static or foundational; it's active, continually reconstituting meaning. This aligns agency with modern philosophical and scientific insights from fields like Systems Theory, Active Inference, and Quantum Branching frameworks.
Addressing the Observability Critique
A potential objection: what exactly counts as an "observable"? Is observability physical, quantum, computational, or perceptual? The ontology purposefully leaves this undefined, not as an oversight but as a deliberate openness to context-specific clarification. Observability itself is subject to agent interpretation, which again returns us to Conditionalism's central claim: truth and meaning always hinge upon implicit contextual conditions.
Minimal and Extended Agency
Is the definition of "agent" too narrow, overly emphasizing sophisticated interpretive capacity? Possibly, but this is a feature rather than a flaw. By framing agency as interpretive processes, we allow the ontology to scale across different levels of complexity—from minimal computational systems to human cognition or potential artificial intelligences—without requiring separate frameworks.
Conclusion: Embracing Ontological Circularity
This concise circular ontology is more than a philosophical novelty. It explicitly and transparently captures Conditionalism’s fundamental insight: interpretation and context are interdependent. Instead of striving for foundational solidity, we gain clarity by consciously acknowledging the inescapable circle at the heart of interpretation itself.