The Ontological Neutrality Theorem: Why Neutral Ontological Substrates Must Be Pre-Causal and Pre-Normative

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.14271v1
• Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2026 02:36:13 GMT
• Title: The Ontological Neutrality Theorem: Why Neutral Ontological Substrates Must Be Pre-Causal and Pre-Normative
• Abstract summary: Modern data systems must support accountability across persistent legal, political, and analytic disagreement.<n> neutrality, understood as non-commitment and stability under incompatible extensions, is incompatible with the inclusion of causal or normative commitments.<n>It follows that neutral ontological substrates must be pre-causal and pre-normative, representing entities, together with identity and persistence conditions.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Modern data systems must support accountability across persistent legal, political, and analytic disagreement. This requirement imposes strict constraints on the design of any ontology intended to function as a shared substrate. We establish an impossibility result for ontological neutrality: neutrality, understood as interpretive non-commitment and stability under incompatible extensions, is incompatible with the inclusion of causal or normative commitments at the foundational layer. Any ontology that asserts causal or deontic conclusions as ontological facts cannot serve as a neutral substrate across divergent frameworks without revision or contradiction. It follows that neutral ontological substrates must be pre-causal and pre-normative, representing entities, together with identity and persistence conditions, while externalizing interpretation, evaluation, and explanation. This paper does not propose a specific ontology or protocol; rather, it establishes the necessary design constraints for any system intended to maintain a shared, stable representation of reality across conflicting interpretive frameworks.

Related papers

• A Minimal $κ$--$τ$ Logic for Risk-Sensitive Abduction [0.0]
  This paper argues that in risk-sensitive domains, the timing of commitment is itself a governed decision.<n>We present a minimal $$--$$ logical framework built on two primitives.<n>The framework provides formal machinery for domains in which the distinction between highly likely and commit-worthy is operationally consequential.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T15:35:32Z)
• A Mathematical Framework for Topological Causal Data Analysis [5.8010446129208155]
  We introduce emphTopological Causal Data Analysis, a framework separating the observation space, causal-model class, topological representation, and causal query.<n>Topology does not define interventions; it supplies stable, shape-sensitive summaries after causal assumptions have been specified.<n>At the distribution level, we identify targets through the standard causal (g)-formula and derive stability-transfer bounds and plug-in consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T13:02:11Z)
• To Compare, or Not to Compare: On Methodological Practices in Evaluating Social Bias [61.40435736418359]
  We introduce a unified framework that standardizes heterogeneous benchmarks to contrast isolated demographic assessments with forced-choice comparative settings.<n>We show that comparative settings act as aggressive catalysts for latent discrimination, a shift primarily driven by underspecified contexts.<n>Finally, we demonstrate that this comparative prejudice is a generalized phenomenon that scales positively with model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T13:53:50Z)
• Position: Anthropomorphic Misalignment Research Needs Stronger Evidence [52.76826423649968]
  We show how conceptual ambiguity, non-robust datasets, experimental design, and insufficient causal interventions can lead to overinterpretation of model behaviors.<n>This position paper aims to offer guidance on evidentiary considerations that can help improve methodological rigor in AMR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T16:38:53Z)
• Interpretability Can Be Actionable [50.72539106927059]
  Interpretability aims to explain the behavior of deep neural networks.<n>Despite rapid growth, there is mounting concern that much of this work has not translated into practical impact.<n>This position paper argues that the central missing ingredient is not new methods, but evaluation criteria: interpretability should be evaluated by actionability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T19:08:21Z)
• From Liar Paradox to Incongruent Sets: A Normal Form for Self-Reference [0.0]
  We study the role of incongruence as a structural source of semantic informativeness.<n>We show that semantic completeness precludes informativeness, while incongruence preserves it.<n>Incongruence manifests structurally as locally realizable but globally incompatible semantic commitments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T17:04:42Z)
• Position: General Alignment Has Hit a Ceiling; Edge Alignment Must Be Taken Seriously [51.03213216886717]
  We take the position that the dominant paradigm of General Alignment reaches a structural ceiling in settings with conflicting values.<n>We introduce Edge Alignment as a distinct approach in which systems preserve multi dimensional value structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T16:51:43Z)
• Substrate Stability Under Persistent Disagreement: Structural Constraints for Neutral Ontological Substrates [0.0]
  interoperability cannot rely on shared interpretation, negotiated semantics, or centralized authority.<n>This paper investigates the structural constraints imposed on ontological design by this requirement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T17:51:02Z)
• Non-Resolution Reasoning (NRR): A Computational Framework for Contextual Identity and Ambiguity Preservation [0.0]
  Current artificial intelligence systems exhibit a fundamental architectural limitation: they resolve ambiguity prematurely.<n>This premature semantic collapse stems from classical identity assumptions embedded in standard neural architectures.<n>We propose Non-Resolution Reasoning (NRR), a computational framework that treats ambiguity retention as a valid reasoning mode.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-15T16:14:32Z)
• Explainable Chain-of-Thought Reasoning: An Empirical Analysis on State-Aware Reasoning Dynamics [69.00587226225232]
  We introduce a state-aware transition framework that abstracts CoT trajectories into structured latent dynamics.<n>To characterize the global structure of reasoning, we model their progression as a Markov chain.<n>This abstraction supports a range of analyses, including semantic role identification, temporal pattern visualization, and consistency evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T18:53:31Z)
• Toward a Graph-Theoretic Model of Belief: Confidence, Credibility, and Structural Coherence [0.0]
  This paper introduces a minimal formalism for belief systems as directed, weighted graphs.<n>Unlike logical and argumentation-based frameworks, it supports fine-grained structural representation without committing to binary justification status or deductive closure.<n>Its aim is to provide a foundational substrate for analyzing the internal organization of belief systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T14:03:23Z)
• Reasoning Systems as Structured Processes: Foundations, Failures, and Formal Criteria [1.2064681974642195]
  We model reasoning systems as structureds comprising phenomena, explanation space, inference and generation maps, and a principle base.<n>We survey basic internal criteria--including coherence, soundness, and completeness--and catalog typical failure modes such as contradiction, incompleteness, and non-convergence.<n>The goal of this work is to establish a foundational structure for representing and comparing reasoning systems, particularly in contexts where internal failure, adaptation, or fragmentation may arise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-03T14:04:15Z)
• Modal Logic for Stratified Becoming: Actualization Beyond Possible Worlds [55.2480439325792]
  This article develops a novel framework for modal logic based on the idea of stratified actualization.<n>Traditional Kripke semantics treat modal operators as quantification over fully determinate alternatives.<n>We propose a system Stratified Actualization Logic (SAL) in which modalities are indexed by levels of ontological stability, interpreted as admissibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T18:35:01Z)
• Topology-Aware Conformal Prediction for Stream Networks [68.02503121089633]
  We propose Spatio-Temporal Adaptive Conformal Inference (textttCISTA), a novel framework that integrates network topology and temporal dynamics into the conformal prediction framework.<n>Our results show that textttCISTA effectively balances prediction efficiency and coverage, outperforming existing conformal prediction methods for stream networks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T21:21:15Z)
• Aggregating Credences into Beliefs: Agenda Conditions for Impossibility Results [0.0]
  We show that path-connectedness and even-negatability constitute the exact agenda condition for the oligarchy result. We compare these novel findings with existing agenda-theoretic characterization theorems in judgment aggregation and belief binarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-11T07:15:11Z)
• Unifying different notions of quantum incompatibility into a strict hierarchy of resource theories of communication [60.18814584837969]
  We introduce the notion of q-compatibility, which unifies different notions of POVMs, channels, and instruments incompatibility. We are able to pinpoint exactly what each notion of incompatibility consists of, in terms of information-theoretic resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-16T21:33:31Z)
• Causal Inference Principles for Reasoning about Commonsense Causality [93.19149325083968]
  Commonsense causality reasoning aims at identifying plausible causes and effects in natural language descriptions that are deemed reasonable by an average person. Existing work usually relies on deep language models wholeheartedly, and is potentially susceptible to confounding co-occurrences. Motivated by classical causal principles, we articulate the central question of CCR and draw parallels between human subjects in observational studies and natural languages. We propose a novel framework, ROCK, to Reason O(A)bout Commonsense K(C)ausality, which utilizes temporal signals as incidental supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-31T06:12:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.