06-01-2017, 01:34 AM
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'.
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'.
Stephen