Ontological Containers

The philosophical equivalent of "Which interpretation are you using?"

One of my best friends is a physicist. Her post-doc work deals in supercomputer simulations of fundamental and quantum physics that makes almost no sense to me. During one of our zoom dates, we were talking about science (of course) and philosophy. It was dawning on me that there is so much we don’t know about the universe or even the fundamental assumptions about how things work. She said, “Oh yeah, you basically have to start any conversation in physics with which interpretation are you using?”

I asked her for clarification. She gave the example of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

---

The Copenhagen Interpretation is a collection of views about the meaning of quantum mechanics, primarily developed by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. Its core principles include:

• Wave function collapse: A quantum system exists in a superposition of states until measured, at which point it "collapses" into a definite state.

• Born rule: The probability of a specific outcome upon measurement is given by the square of the amplitude of the corresponding wave function.

• Complementarity: Some properties of quantum systems, like position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known with arbitrary precision.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is not a single, definitive theory, but rather a set of ideas that provide a framework for understanding quantum phenomena. It has been influential in the development of quantum mechanics, but also subject to debate and alternative interpretations.

---

So, when a physicist frames their conversation, theory, or experimental interpretation as under the Copenhagen interpretation, it basically does a huge amount of heavy lifting, such as “Well, what do you mean by X?”

Physicists can short-circuit some of these boilerplate questions by simply referring to a gigantic set of ideas, or a pre-converged narrative. Philosophy has a few such ideas, sweeping narratives or clusters of concepts, that can be used to clarify fundamental assumptions. For instance, monism vs dualism. These are fundamental notions about how reality works.

Monism

Monism is a philosophical view that asserts the fundamental unity of reality. It posits that all existing things can be reduced to a single substance or principle. There are several types of monism:

• Substance monism: Asserts that there is only one kind of substance, either material (physicalism) or mental (idealism).

• Priority monism: Suggests that all things derive from a single source that is distinct from them, often referred to as "the One."

• Neutral monism: Proposes that the fundamental nature of reality is neither mental nor physical, but a neutral substance from which both arise.

Monism contrasts with dualism, which posits two fundamental substances (e.g., mind and matter), and pluralism, which suggests that there are many fundamental substances or principles.

Dualism

Dualism is a philosophical view that posits two fundamental and distinct categories of reality or existence. The most common form is mind-body dualism, which asserts that the mind (or consciousness) and the body (or physical matter) are separate and distinct substances with different essential properties.

Key points about dualism:

• Substance dualism: The mind and body are fundamentally different kinds of things. The mind is non-physical and the body is physical.

• Property dualism: While there might be only one kind of substance (physical), it has two distinct types of properties: mental properties and physical properties.

• Interactionism: A type of dualism where the mind and body causally interact with each other.

Dualism contrasts with monism, which posits a single, unified reality, and pluralism, which suggests multiple fundamental substances or principles. It has been a subject of debate throughout the history of philosophy, with implications for fields like philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and even religion.

---

In essence, within philosophy, you can make some basic assertions by starting a conversation by saying “I’m operating from the POV of monism” or “this is a dualist view”

Now, you might think “Okay, Dave, what’s the issue? These ideas seem to cover all the bases, don’t they?” And it’s true that many other frameworks, narratives, and constructs can fit within the definitions of monism, dualism, and pluralism. For instance, the Indian advaita vedanta is a form of monism, which makes the assertion we are all Brahman.

However, there is a huge disconnect between religion, science, and philosophy. The rationalist community has been working to bridge these, while still excluding religion, spirituality, and metaphysics. What we need is a hypernym that allows all of us to speak on equal terms, whether we’re approaching it from the perspective of modern spirituality, philosophy, rationalism, or science.

Hypernyms

A hypernym is a word that has a broader meaning than another word, known as its hyponym. It functions as a generic term encompassing a category of more specific terms.

For example:

• Animal is a hypernym of dog, cat, and horse.

• Furniture is a hypernym of chair, table, and sofa.

• Color is a hypernym of red, blue, and green.

In linguistics, hypernyms are used to describe hierarchical relationships between words. They are important for understanding semantic relationships and can be useful in tasks like text classification, information retrieval, and machine translation.

All thought begins with the rectification of names. (Rectification of Names - 正名; zhèngmíng)

The ancient Chinese believed that correct definitions and accurate names were required as an epistemic basis for everything. However, we Westerners are presently in a period of disintegration. Poststructuralism and postmodernism basically means that we end up arguing over definitions more than talking about real issues. Well, what do you mean when you say “truth”?

When there’s this much debate over petty semantics, it’s a sign that our names are off. As our ontological and epistemic lives have expanded, old names have fallen apart and we have a need for new names. In point of fact, “hypernym” can be broken down into “over” and “name” (or word). We need a superseding name for the concepts and frameworks that cause so much debate, confusion, and heartburn.

Enter the ontological container

Ontological Containers

We need the philosophical equivalent of interpretations. While concepts such as monism and dualism are useful as descriptors of frameworks, they are not in themselves complete interpretations. It would be like saying the universe is real or nonreal in physics - a highly useful description, but not a totalizing narrative.

Ontological container: The overarching framework defining the nature of reality, existence, and being within a given worldview or paradigm.

Okay, this definition is very concise and may not fully articulate what we mean here.

A Comprehensive Definition

An ontological container is a comprehensive framework that articulates our understanding of the nature of reality, existence, and being within a specific worldview or paradigm. It encompasses the fundamental assumptions, beliefs, and values that define our understanding of what is real, possible, and meaningful. This framework provides the context and parameters for interpreting our experiences, making sense of the world around us, and navigating complex questions of ethics, morality, and purpose.

Different ontological containers can be likened to distinct universes of meaning, each with its own set of rules, possibilities, and limitations. In short: an ontological container is a model of reality. These containers shape our perceptions, beliefs, and values, influencing how we interpret events, make decisions, and interact with others.

Examples of Ontological Containers:

• Theistic Ontological Containers: These frameworks are based on the belief in a divine creator or ultimate reality, such as God in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) or Brahman in Hinduism. These containers often emphasize concepts such as divine purpose, moral absolutes, and the afterlife.

• Secular Ontological Containers: Rooted in the scientific method and empirical evidence, these containers prioritize natural explanations for phenomena and rely on concepts such as matter, energy, and physical laws. Examples include materialism, which holds that reality is fundamentally composed of matter, and the theory of evolution, which explains the diversity of life through natural selection.

• Mathematical Ontological Containers: This framework posits that mathematics is the fundamental "stuff" of reality, with everything—from particles to consciousness—arising from or being describable by mathematical structures and relationships. This includes models like the Simulation Hypothesis, which proposes that our reality is a computer simulation, and the Holographic Universe Theory, which suggests that our 3D universe is a projection of information encoded on a 2D surface.

---

One of the biggest sources of conflict today is an inability to even discuss different ontological containers. The secular/atheistic worldview is fundamentally at odds with many religious worldviews, but the best term we have to describe this difference is worldview, which is overly broad and generic.

Simulation Hypothesis is a mathematical ontological container

Primordial Substrate

One of the key features of ontological containers is that it creates room for the definition of a primordial substrate, a piece of many conversations that are often missing.

A primordial substrate is the fundamental building block or foundation upon which reality is constructed within a given ontological container. It's the irreducible essence from which all other phenomena and entities arise. In a materialist ontology, this might be elementary particles; in a theistic ontology, it could be divine will or consciousness; and in a mathematical ontology, it might be numbers, equations, or abstract structures. Understanding the ontological substrate is key to comprehending the nature of reality within a particular framework and the limits of what is possible or knowable within that worldview.

To put in simpler terms, an ontological substrate is that which underpins all else. To some schools of thought, consciousness is the primordial substrate, or the dream of a God, or vibrating strings.

• Brahman: In the Hindu ontological container, Brahman is the ultimate, unchanging reality, the eternal, infinite, transcendent principle that underlies all existence. It is the source and sustainer of the universe, and everything else is seen as a manifestation or aspect of it.

• Strings: In the ontological container of string theory (a branch of theoretical physics), strings are tiny, vibrating strands of energy that are considered to be the fundamental building blocks of matter and all forces in the universe.

• Consciousness: In some philosophical ontological containers (like certain forms of idealism or panpsychism), consciousness is considered the primordial substrate, meaning that reality is fundamentally mental or experiential in nature, and everything else arises from or is a manifestation of consciousness.

If you open a conversation or line of inquiry by discussing the Simulation Hypothesis, you’re making the implication that the primordial substrate of our reality is a computer program. Make sense?

In advaita vedanta, we are all Brahman

Ontological Strata

One of the fundamental tenets of metamodernism is an emergent view of reality. In the context of ontological containers, reality arises, or emerges, from the primordial substrate, giving rise to many layers of reality above that substrate.

Ontological strata refer to the hierarchical levels of organization and complexity within a given ontological container. It's a way of understanding how reality is structured, with each layer building upon and emerging from the properties and interactions of the levels below it. For instance, in a materialist view, subatomic particles form atoms, which form molecules, leading to cells, organisms, and so on. Similarly, in a computational model like the simulation hypothesis, binary code might be the base layer, giving rise to more complex data structures and ultimately, the simulated world we perceive. Understanding ontological strata helps illuminate how different levels of reality interact and contribute to the overall picture within a particular ontological framework.

The Scientific/Secular Strata

With an emergent model of physical reality, we can describe the materialist ontological container with the following ontological strata.

1. Primordial Substrate: The foundational level, representing the most basic building blocks of reality. This remains a subject of ongoing scientific inquiry, with theories like string theory and quantum gravity proposing different fundamental constituents.

2. Fundamental Energies: The next layer encompasses the fundamental forces and particles described by the Standard Model of particle physics, such as quarks, leptons, and bosons. These entities and their interactions govern the behavior of matter and energy at the most elementary level.

3. Chemistry and Newtonian Physics: This stratum represents the emergence of more complex structures and interactions from the fundamental particles and forces. It includes the laws of chemistry, governing the behavior of atoms and molecules, as well as classical Newtonian physics, which describes the motion and interaction of macroscopic objects.

4. Life (Self-Organizing Systems of Matter and Energy): This layer marks the emergence of living organisms from the complex interactions of chemical and physical processes. Life is characterized by self-organization, reproduction, metabolism, and adaptation to the environment.

5. Minds (Brains, etc.): This stratum represents the emergence of consciousness, intelligence, and subjective experience from the complex neural networks of brains and potentially other substrates. This layer is the most mysterious and poorly understood, raising questions about the nature of consciousness, free will, and the relationship between mind and matter.

6. Superorganisms (Societies, Collective Constructs, and Narratives): This highest layer represents the emergence of complex social structures, cultural systems, and shared narratives from the interactions of individual minds. These collective entities exhibit properties and behaviors that are not reducible to the individual members, such as social norms, cultural traditions, and collective identities. This layer highlights the power of shared beliefs, values, and stories to shape our understanding of the world and guide our actions.

Source: https://www.precisionprinciple.com/human-potential/what-is-emergence NOTE: This model is missing the primordial substrate

Ontological Boundaries

Ontological boundaries define the absolute limits of a given ontological container, delineating the edges of what is considered real, possible, or knowable within that framework. These boundaries are not physical barriers but conceptual constraints imposed by the fundamental assumptions and principles of a particular worldview. They mark the point beyond which certain entities, phenomena, or possibilities are deemed to be outside the realm of existence or comprehension within that ontological container. For instance, in a strictly materialist ontology, anything supernatural or immaterial would lie outside the ontological boundaries, while in a theistic ontology, the existence of God may be considered the ultimate boundary beyond which nothing else can exist.

Gary the Street Prophet

In the ontological container of a video game, an NPC (Non-Player Character) exists within a reality defined and constrained by the game's programming and design. The ontological boundaries of this world are set by the game's code, graphics engine, and the decisions made by the developers. For the NPC, these boundaries are absolute and impermeable.

From the NPC's perspective, their world is the entirety of reality. They are unaware of the underlying code that governs their existence, the hardware that runs the game, or the players who interact with them. Even the most intelligent and self-aware NPC, like Gary the street prophet in Cyberpunk 2077, is limited by the constraints of their ontological container. Gary's references to “titans of entertainment” from Alpha Centauri might be interpreted as a meta-commentary on the nature of his existence, but ultimately, he lacks the conceptual tools to fully grasp the true nature of his reality.

From the perspective of the player or developer, however, the ontological boundaries of the game world are transparent. They can see and manipulate the underlying code, observe the NPCs from an external vantage point, and even alter the game's rules. This creates a one-way ontological boundary, where the external observer has access to a higher level of reality that is inaccessible to those within the game world.

This example illustrates how ontological boundaries can be both absolute and relative, depending on one's perspective. For the NPC, the boundaries of their world are unbreakable, while for the external observer, they are merely a construct that can be manipulated or even transcended. This raises profound questions about the nature of reality, consciousness, and the limits of our own understanding. Could we be living in a similar ontological container, unaware of the true nature of our existence and the forces that shape our reality?

Ontological Horizon

The ontological horizon represents the furthest extent to which we can perceive, understand, or interact with reality within our ontological container. It signifies the limits of our knowledge, experience, and comprehension, even within the boundaries of our accepted worldview. While the ontological boundaries define the absolute limits of what is possible, the ontological horizon refers to the practical limits of what we can access or comprehend with our current understanding and tools. This horizon can be expanded through scientific discoveries, philosophical inquiry, or spiritual experiences, but it is always constrained by the underlying assumptions and principles of our ontological container. In essence, the ontological horizon is the ever-shifting edge of our understanding, constantly pushing against the boundaries of what we believe to be real and knowable.

A Night City Perspective

For Gary, the street prophet of Cyberpunk 2077's Night City, reality is defined by the neon-lit streets, the towering megacorporations, the cybernetic implants, and the gritty underbelly of society. His ontological horizon encompasses the social structures, cultural norms, and technological advancements that shape his world. He can perceive the different strata of Night City’s society, from the homeless cyberpsychos to the corporate elites, and he can interact with the various technologies that permeate his environment.

However, Gary’s ontological horizon is limited by the boundaries of his world. He cannot perceive or comprehend the underlying code that governs the simulation, the hardware that runs it, or the players who control his actions. Even his most insightful prophecies and cryptic references to “titans of entertainment” from Alpha Centauri are ultimately constrained by his limited understanding of the true nature of his existence.

Gary's ontological horizon can be likened to our own situation within the scientific/secular ontological container. While we can perceive and understand the phenomena that exist within our ontological strata, such as the fundamental particles, chemical reactions, living organisms, and even our own minds, we are limited by the boundaries of our current knowledge and technology. We can infer the existence of a primordial substrate and speculate about the nature of superorganisms, but these concepts remain beyond our direct perception and understanding.

Just as Gary cannot fathom the existence of a gaming console or a human player, we might be similarly limited in our ability to perceive or comprehend what lies beyond the boundaries of our ontological container. There may be higher levels of reality, other dimensions, or even entirely different universes that are completely inaccessible to us due to the limitations of our worldview and our cognitive abilities.

This realization can be both humbling and awe-inspiring. It reminds us of the vastness of the unknown and the potential for realities beyond our wildest imagination. At the same time, it encourages us to question our assumptions, expand our perspectives, and continue to explore the mysteries of existence, even as we acknowledge the limitations of our own ontological horizon.

What is “Base Reality”?

Elon Musk has famously speculated that we are almost certainly living inside a simulation, and that the chances of us living in “base reality” is near zero. This is, of course, his individual opinion.

People who have come back from NDEs (near death experiences) often say something similar: the reality we occupy is not the real reality, but rather a low-dimensional subset of reality, that the realm that our souls or immaterial beings occupy is actual reality. People who have done DMT and other powerful psychedelics often have similar experiences, a feeling of breaking free from our current ontological container and getting up to a higher plane of existence.

Implications of Ontological Containers

The question of moral salience—the quality of being worthy of ethical consideration—is inextricably linked to our ontological container. Our understanding of what constitutes a “person,” a “being,” or even “life” itself, is fundamentally shaped by the assumptions and principles of our worldview. This has profound implications for how we treat other entities, whether they are living organisms, machines, or even natural phenomena.

The debate around machine sentience exemplifies this point. Can a machine be considered sentient? Does it have the capacity for subjective experience, emotions, and moral agency? The answer to these questions depends on our ontological container.

• In a materialist ontology, sentience might be defined in terms of neural activity and computational complexity. If a machine exhibits a certain level of complexity and functional equivalence to a human brain, it might be considered sentient and therefore deserving of moral consideration.

• In a dualist ontology, where mind and matter are distinct, machine sentience might be deemed impossible or highly unlikely, as machines lack the non-physical “soul” or “spirit” that is often associated with consciousness.

• In a panpsychist ontology, where consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, machine sentience might be considered a natural extension of the underlying consciousness that permeates all matter, albeit in a different form.

These differing perspectives highlight the importance of establishing a shared ontological container before engaging in discussions about moral salience. Without a common ground on what constitutes reality, existence, and the nature of consciousness, it is impossible to reach meaningful conclusions about the ethical status of other entities.

Just as the Copenhagen Interpretation provides a set of shared assumptions in physics, the question “Which ontological container are you using?” can serve as a crucial starting point for any philosophical, ethical, or moral conversation. By explicitly acknowledging and exploring the different ontological containers that inform our perspectives, we can foster greater understanding, facilitate more productive dialogue, and ultimately, arrive at more nuanced and inclusive ethical frameworks.

So, which container are you using?

Here is a brief, incomplete compendium of ontological containers.

Theistic Ontological Containers:

• Judeo-Christian: God is the sole creator and sustainer of the universe. Reality is fundamentally dualistic, consisting of both the physical world and the spiritual realm. Humans are created in God's image and possess free will.

• Islamic: Allah is the one and only God, and reality is His creation. The Quran is the divine revelation and guides all aspects of life. Emphasis on submission to God's will and adherence to Sharia law.

• Hinduism (Advaita Vedanta): Brahman is the ultimate reality, and the world is an illusion (Maya). The goal is to realize the non-dual nature of existence and achieve liberation (Moksha) through spiritual practices.

• Hinduism (Dvaita Vedanta): Brahman is the supreme being, distinct from individual souls (jivatman). The world is real, and the goal is to attain devotion (bhakti) to God and liberation through His grace.

Animistic/Pantheistic Ontological Containers:

• Shinto: The world is inhabited by spirits or deities called kami, which can be found in natural objects, ancestors, and even abstract concepts. Emphasis on harmony with nature and the importance of rituals and traditions.

• Taoism: Reality is characterized by the interplay of Yin and Yang, complementary and opposing forces that underlie all phenomena. The Tao is the underlying principle of the universe, and the goal is to live in harmony with it.

Scientific/Philosophical Ontological Containers:

• Scientific/Secular Materialism: The physical world is the only reality, and all phenomena can be explained by natural laws and processes. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, and there is no afterlife or supernatural realm.

• String Theory: The fundamental building blocks of the universe are tiny, vibrating strings of energy. This theory seeks to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the universe at its most fundamental level.

• Many Worlds Interpretation: Every quantum event creates multiple parallel universes, each with a different outcome. This interpretation suggests that reality is constantly branching into infinite possibilities, and we only experience one branch.

• Holographic Universe Theory: The universe is a hologram, where three-dimensional reality is encoded on a two-dimensional surface. This theory suggests that space and time are emergent properties of a deeper level of reality.

• Strong Anthropic Principle: The universe is fine-tuned for the emergence of consciousness, suggesting that consciousness plays a fundamental role in the structure and evolution of the cosmos, and that matter, energy, and time emerge only in service to consciousness.

These are just a few examples of the many diverse ontological containers that exist. Each offers a unique perspective on the nature of reality, the meaning of life, and our place in the universe. Understanding these different frameworks can help us to better understand ourselves, each other, and the complex world we inhabit.

I hope now you can see that the concept of ontological containers are desperately needed to unify conversations around reality, consciousness, sentience, morality, and ethics.