This sounds strongly like we have no grounds for considering ontology at all when determining what the best possible explanation.

  1. We cannot qualitatively distinguish between ontologies, except through the other qualities we were already examining.
  2. We don't have a way of searching for new ontologies.

So it looks like all we have done is go from best possible explanation to best available explanation where some superior explanation occupies a space of almost-zero in our probability distribution.

We cannot qualitatively distinguish between ontologies, except through the other qualities we were already examining.

If that is supposed to mean that every ontology comes with its own isolated, tailor-made criteria, and that there are no others ... then I dont think the situation is quite that bad: it;'s partly true, but there are also criteria that span ontologies, like parsimony.

We don't have a way of searching for new ontologies.

The point is that we don't have a mechanical, algorithmic way of searching for new ontologies. (It's a very lesswrongin... (read more)

Open thread, Jul. 25 - Jul. 31, 2016

by MrMind 1 min read25th Jul 2016133 comments

3


If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.


Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "