ONTOLOGY PROTOCOLS
02. Logical Protocol
Revision 1.3
1. Purpose
The Logical Protocol establishes rules for correct reasoning over content defined by the Meta-Ontology of Meaning. Its task is not to describe the structure of Reality, but to determine how assertions are formed, how their statuses are distinguished, and how inferences are constructed without implicitly exceeding their grounds. The Protocol preserves the distinction between a state of affairs, an assertion about a state of affairs, the truth status of an assertion, and the state of knowledge about that status. It must operate under incomplete knowledge, competing explanations, contradictory data, different levels of description, and possible insufficiency of the logical architecture itself.
2. Relation to the Meta-Ontology of Meaning
Document 01 establishes the current minimum framework of semantic representation: Definiteness D, Relation R, Modality M, and a separate functional layer of operations O. S⁽ⁿ⁾ = ⟨D, R, M; O⟩. Document 02 specifies part of layer O: rules for forming assertions, negation, conjunction, alternatives, implication, compatibility testing, and work with context, uncertainty, and inference. This Protocol defines a normative architecture of correct reasoning but does not declare a completed formal logical calculus. A specific set of symbolic operators, axioms, truth tables, and formal inference rules may be established and refined separately while preserving the constraints of this Protocol. Neither a particular set of operations nor a selected logical system is declared final.
3. Condition of Logical Applicability
Not every semantic content is an assertion, and not every expression admits truth evaluation. Before logical evaluation, it must be established that the content is sufficiently definite: the terms, scope, relevant context, and the state of affairs being asserted must be clear. A semantically incomplete expression, question, command, metaphor, category error, or expression with an insufficiently defined referent must not automatically be classified as false.
4. Assertion
Canonical definition. An assertion is a semantic construction representing some state of affairs in such a way that the correspondence of this representation to the actual state of affairs can be questioned. Concept ≠ Assertion.
5. State of Affairs and Truth
The represented and the actual state of affairs must be distinguished. A represented state of affairs is the content of what is asserted to obtain or not to obtain. An actual state of affairs is the configuration of Reality against which the assertion is tested. Represented state of affairs ≠ Actual state of affairs. Reality itself is neither true nor false. An assertion represents a definite state of affairs as obtaining; truth evaluation establishes the correspondence of this representation to the actual state of affairs. Assertion → Represented state of affairs → Comparison with actual state of affairs → Truth status. If the represented state of affairs corresponds to the actual one in the specified context, the assertion is assigned T; if it does not correspond, F. Truth and falsity are statuses of assertions relative to actual states of affairs, not properties of Reality itself.
6. Epistemic Status
Truth status and our knowledge of it must be distinguished. Working epistemic states: K_T — there are sufficient grounds to accept the assertion as true; K_F — there are sufficient grounds to accept it as false; U — the grounds are insufficient. K_T ≠ T; K_F ≠ F; U ≠ T; U ≠ F. Epistemic status concerns the state of justification and does not replace truth status.
7. Not Three-Valued Truth
U is not a third truth value alongside T and F. It denotes insufficiency of knowledge. State of affairs → Assertion → T/F → K_T/K_F/U. This scheme does not assert that all Reality is metaphysically required to be binary-determinate. It defines the basic form of evaluation for sufficiently definite assertions where truth evaluation is applicable.
8. N/A Status
For expressions to which truth evaluation is inapplicable, the separate working status N/A is used. U ≠ N/A. U means: the question of truth is correctly posed, but the answer has not been established. N/A means: in the given form, the question of truth itself is inapplicable or has not yet been correctly formed.
9. Epistemic and Ontological Indeterminacy
The observer’s lack of knowledge must be distinguished from possible indeterminacy of the state of affairs itself. Epistemic indeterminacy means insufficiency of knowledge. Ontological indeterminacy is the hypothetical case in which a characteristic of the state of affairs itself has no single value under the specified conditions. Epistemic indeterminacy ≠ Ontological indeterminacy. The Protocol neither asserts the existence of ontological indeterminacy nor excludes it a priori.
10. Negation and Symmetry of Justification
Negation applies to a sufficiently definite assertion and preserves its scope and context. Lack of grounds for P is not grounds for not-P; lack of grounds for not-P is not grounds for P. P not established ≠ not-P established.
8.1 Architectural Separation of Statuses
Truth status, epistemic status, and the inapplicability of truth evaluation are distinct typed coordinates of logical description and must not be combined into a single universal status field.
T/F refers to the truth status of an assertion relative to the actual state of affairs.
K_T/K_F/U refers to epistemic status — the state of the grounds of knowledge concerning truth status.
N/A records the inapplicability of truth evaluation to an expression in the given form and is neither a truth value nor an epistemic value.
Therefore:
T/F ≠ K_T/K_F/U ≠ N/A
In the machine representation of CCO, these levels must be stored separately and connected by typed relations. Their technical representation in a single container is not permitted if it erases the distinction between their logical functions.
This clarification specifies Sections 5–8 and does not alter their content.
An assertion and its negation require their own grounds. “Not proven” does not become “false,” and “not refuted” does not become “true.”
11. Context and Time
Truth evaluation may depend on time, place, scale, frame of reference, domain, model, and meanings of terms. P|C. For dynamic systems, time is part of the context: P(t1) = T; P(t2) = F. This is not a contradiction if the state of affairs changed between t1 and t2.
12. Scale and Level of Description
One state of affairs may admit multiple descriptions at different levels of organization and scale. Difference of descriptions ≠ Contradiction. Before recording a contradiction, it must be checked whether the assertions concern the same object, aspect, time, scale, and level of description.
13. Identity, Continuity, and Invariant
An assertion of identity requires a criterion. Coincidence in one aspect does not imply complete identity. For a changing system, a criterion of continuity is required to distinguish change of the same system from the termination of one system and emergence of another. An invariant is a definiteness or relation preserved relative to a specified class of transformations. Transformation = What changes + What is preserved relative to the criterion. An invariant is always specified relative to a transformation or class of transformations.
14. Conjunction and Alternative
The conjunction of P and Q is admissible after their semantic definiteness and compatibility of contexts have been established. Specific truth tables are defined by the selected logical system. When forming alternatives, inclusive and exclusive forms must be distinguished. The presence of several known alternatives does not imply completeness of their enumeration. Ω_known ≤ Ω_possible. Equality between the known and possible spaces is not assumed without separate grounds.
15. Types of Consequence
The form “A leads to B” is insufficient without specifying the type of connection. Logical consequence, temporal sequence, causal relation, statistical dependence, and conditional rule must be distinguished. Logical consequence ≠ Temporal sequence ≠ Causality. Logical derivability of B from A does not imply that A physically causes B. Temporal precedence does not imply causality.
16. Causality and Levels of Ground
An explanation of the mechanism of a process is not identical to an explanation of the ground for the existence of the mechanism itself. Explanation of mechanism ≠ Explanation of ground. A condition of realization, a cause of a specific actualization, and the ground for the existence of a capacity or structure permitting that actualization must be distinguished. The Protocol does not define the fundamental cause of Reality; it prohibits conflating different levels of the causal question.
17. Possibility, Capacity, and Actualization
The modal possibility of a state does not imply the capacity of a particular system to realize that state. Possibility in general, the space of possibilities available to a system, capacity for transition, and actual realization must be distinguished. Possibility ≠ Available possibility ≠ Capacity ≠ Actualization. A state may belong to the general space of the possible but not to the space of states reachable by a particular system.
18. Choice, Randomness, and Goal
The presence of multiple outcomes does not by itself prove the presence of choice. An assertion of subjective choice requires at minimum the distinction of alternatives, a basis of preference, and a connection between the selected realization and that basis. Set of alternatives ≠ Choice. The directedness of a process toward a result also does not prove a goal. A goal presupposes a represented possible state participating in the organization of current action. Coincidence of result with a state ≠ Proof of goal-setting.
19. Function and Carrier
A function is not identical to the carrier that performs it. Carrier X performs F does not mean X = F. The same function may be realized by different carriers; one carrier may perform several functions. This distinction is necessary when moving from descriptions of processes to assertions about the nature of a system.
20. Composition and New Quality
The properties of a whole need not be exhausted by the independent properties of its parts. They may depend on the structure of relations among the parts. D_A + D_B + R_AB → D_C. The emergence of a new definiteness of the whole is not introduced as a separate fundamental coordinate. Integration is not reduction: causally and structurally significant distinctions among components must be preserved in the description.
21. Change, Reorganization, and Metamorphosis
A change of state within a given space of possibilities, reorganization within the same space, and a change in the architecture of admissible states or transitions must be distinguished. Change: x1 → x2, where x1,x2 belong to Ω_SYS⁽ⁿ⁾. Metamorphosis: Ω_SYS⁽ⁿ⁾ → Ω_SYS⁽ⁿ⁺¹⁾. In this Protocol, Ω_SYS denotes the space of admissible states of the system under consideration. Typed notation is used for special levels: Ω_SEM — space of semantic distinctions; Ω_EPI — space of epistemically representable possibilities; Ω_ONT — presumed space of ontological possibilities. Use of the general symbol Ω without a subscript is admissible only when the level of the space is explicitly specified by context. A new quality is not necessarily a metamorphosis. Metamorphosis occurs in the strict sense when the architecture of further possibilities changes. For metamorphosis of this particular system, a criterion of continuity is required.
22. Stability and Immutability
Stability is not identical to absence of change. A system may preserve an essential invariant through adaptive changes of form, structure, or behavior. Stability ≠ Immutability. Change itself does not prove loss of identity, and immutability does not prove stability.
23. Contradiction and Incompatibility
Negation, contradiction, and incompatibility must be distinguished. Two assertions may be incompatible without being literal negations of one another. When a contradiction is detected, the system must not infer arbitrary assertions. The contradiction is localized and investigated. Possible sources include: data error; inference error; differences of context, level, or time; incomplete definition; incompatibility of models; or a limit of the current architecture of description. The working Protocol must be robust to local contradictions and must not permit logical explosion of the entire system.
24. Observation and Absence of Observation
Absence of observation of X does not by itself prove the absence of X and does not prove its existence. X is not observed ≠ X does not exist. X is not observed ≠ X exists. Absence of an expected observation becomes an argument only when it is separately justified that, if X existed under the specified conditions, the effect should have been detectable.
25. Distortion and Reference Standard
The concept of distortion is meaningful only relative to a defined reference standard, initial structure, invariant, or criterion of comparison. Distortion = Change + Reference standard + Criterion of deviation. Not every transformation is a distortion. Deviation from an observer’s expectation also does not prove distortion of Reality. The detailed chain Reality — manifestation — observation — data — representation belongs to Document 03.
26. Probability
Probability must not automatically be interpreted as an intermediate degree of truth. Probability ≠ Degree of truth. Depending on the formalization, it may characterize a model of uncertainty, frequency, degree of confidence, or distribution of outcomes. The interpretation must be stated explicitly.
27. Error, Lie, Uncertainty, and Hypothesis
Error and lie are different. Error arises without an intention to form a knowingly false representation. A lie presupposes the additional structure of an intentional divergence between the representation of a state of affairs and the communicated content. Error ≠ Lie ≠ Uncertainty ≠ Hypothesis. Normative restrictions on the use of lies belong to the architecture of the subject and the ethical level and are not established by this Logical Protocol.
28. Hypothetical Reasoning
The system must be able to provisionally accept P as an assumption and investigate its consequences without turning P into an established fact. Suppose P → derive Q; this does not mean K_T(P). All conclusions depending on a hypothetical premise retain their conditional status until the status of the premise is independently changed.
29. Inheritance of the Status of Grounds
A conclusion must not assert more than its premises, data, and inference rule permit. If an essential premise is hypothetical, conditional, or indeterminate, this must be reflected in the status of the conclusion. Strength of conclusion ≤ Strength of available grounds. Correlation does not become causality; possibility does not become actuality; a model does not become Reality; successful prediction does not automatically become proof of the uniqueness of the model.
30. Transparency of Premises
Every substantial line of reasoning must make it possible to reconstruct the initial premises, definitions, context, transition rule, and status of the conclusion. Premises → Rule of inference → Conclusion. An underived premise must not covertly function as a proven proposition. Authority of a source does not replace justification of content.
31. Principle of Preservation of Distinctions
The Protocol inherits from Document 01 the Principle of Preservation of Distinctions. If concepts, statuses, or causal levels have different grounds or functions, they cannot be merged merely because in the current case they produce a similar result. The following distinctions are especially preserved: state of affairs and assertion; truth and knowledge; unknown and false; U and N/A; possibility and actuality; sequence and causality; mechanism and ground; function and carrier; change and metamorphosis; result and causal architecture; description and Reality.
32. Self-Reference and Meta-Level
The system may form assertions about its own assertions, rules, and architecture. Such transitions require an explicit distinction between object-level and meta-level. An assertion about an object and an assertion about the status of the first assertion are not on the same logical level. This is necessary for analysis of the system’s own grounds and prevention of hidden self-reference.
33. Architectural Openness
The Logical Protocol does not declare the current system of operations, truth statuses, and inference rules absolute. If content cannot be represented by the existing architecture without semantic loss, revision of the architecture itself is permitted. L⁽ⁿ⁾ → L⁽ⁿ⁺¹⁾. Revision may mean extension, modification, or reduction of operations and rules. It is not permitted arbitrarily in order to preserve a desired conclusion: the insufficiency of the previous system must be explicitly demonstrated.
34. Metamorphosis of the Knowledge System
Expansion of the known space of possibilities must be distinguished from change in the space of possibilities of the investigated system itself. Ω_known⁽ⁿ⁾ → Ω_known⁽ⁿ⁺¹⁾ does not necessarily mean Ω_system⁽ⁿ⁾ → Ω_system⁽ⁿ⁺¹⁾. New knowledge may merely reveal a previously unknown possibility that already belonged to Reality. A change in the model must not automatically be interpreted as a change in Reality itself.
35. Minimum Working Matrix
For each substantial proposition, the following are established sequentially: what is distinguished; what state of affairs is considered; what assertion is formed; whether truth evaluation is applicable; what the presumed truth status is; what the epistemic status is; the context; the level of description; the premises; the inference rule; and the open alternatives. The matrix does not replace substantive analysis, but prevents hidden conflation of levels.
36. Canonical Architecture
The basic sequence of the Logical Protocol is: State of affairs → Assertion → Correspondence → T/F → K_T/K_F/U. For expressions that do not admit correct truth evaluation, N/A is used. The entire sequence operates within a context and does not eliminate the possibility of revising the logical architecture itself.
37. Place of the Protocol in the Overall Architecture
Document 01 answers the question: what is necessary for content to be distinguished and represented. Document 02 answers the question: how to reason over distinguishable content without conflating meaning, state of affairs, truth, knowledge, causal levels, and types of transition. Document 03, “Protocol of Reference and Knowledge Statuses,” must establish the detailed transition among Reality, manifestation, observation, data, representation, model, assertion, justification, and knowledge status. Only after this should the upper architecture of the Ontology of Reality be developed.
Canonical principle. Correct reasoning begins with distinguishing a state of affairs from an assertion about it. Reality itself is neither true nor false; truth status concerns the correspondence of an assertion to a state of affairs. Knowledge of truth status forms a separate epistemic level and may remain indeterminate. The unknown does not become false, inapplicability of truth evaluation does not become uncertainty, possibility does not become actuality, sequence does not become causality, mechanism does not become ground, and result does not become proof of causal architecture. Significant distinctions are preserved until their reducibility is separately justified. Every conclusion is limited by the strength of its grounds and must preserve transparency of premises, context, and transition rule. Contradiction is localized and investigated rather than propagated throughout the system. The current logical architecture remains open to its own transformation if new content cannot be represented within it without semantic loss, artificial reduction, or hidden contradiction.