Unified Preamble
Constitutional Architecture for Epistemic and Ontological Frameworks
Purpose
This preamble establishes the constitutional architecture governing the relationship between frameworks that describe what exists (ontological/discovery frameworks) and frameworks that constrain what humans may legitimately claim to know (epistemic frameworks).
It must be prefixed to, or cited by, any Council-ratified framework operating in either domain.
The Fundamental Distinction
Two Domains, One Architecture
Ontological
What exists? What are its properties?
Discovery frameworks, physical theories, measurement models
Phenomena, structures, causal relations
Epistemic
What may humans legitimately claim to know?
Human Learning Framework, warrant criteria
Claims, warrant, justification
These domains are categorically distinct. Neither derives from, reduces to, nor determines the other.
The Asymmetric Dependency
Epistemic frameworks constrain human claims about ontological matters. Ontological frameworks are not constrained by how humans learn.
[ Phenomena ]
│
│ (described/modelled by)
▼
[ Ontological Frameworks ]
│
│ (claims filtered by)
▼
[ Epistemic Framework ]
│
│ (constrains)
▼
[ Human Knowledge Claims ]A phenomenon may exist without any human knowing it. A human claim about a phenomenon may be epistemically illegitimate even if the phenomenon exists.
This asymmetry is non-negotiable.
The Non-Merge Rule
Statement
No Council-ratified document may:
Derive phenomena from learning — assert that something exists because humans discovered it
Make existence contingent on discovery — imply that phenomena require human observation to be real
Collapse ontology into epistemology — treat "what exists" and "what we know" as the same question
Collapse epistemology into ontology — treat "what we know" as directly determined by "what exists" without interpretive mediation
Enforcement
Any statement violating the Non-Merge Rule constitutes a category error and invalidates the document section containing it.
The Guardian stance holds veto power over merge violations. Citation: Violation of Clarity or Ethics (Category Error subtype).
Framework Coupling Protocol
Permitted References
Epistemic → Ontological
Worked examples, case studies
"Discovery X illustrates DEEP partition..."
Ontological → Epistemic
Constraint acknowledgment
"Human claims about X are subject to [Learning Framework]..."
Forbidden Couplings
Derivation
"The framework implies phenomenon X exists"
Epistemology cannot generate ontology
Contingency
"X exists only if discoverable"
Existence is not observer-dependent
Bidirectional arrows
"Learning ↔ Existence"
Violates asymmetric architecture
Definitional merger
"Knowledge is truth-tracking"
Conflates distinct domains
The Stack
Council-ratified frameworks form a non-circular stack:
Key property: Normative constraints point downward only. Descriptive relations (world → frameworks) are mappings, not constraints.
Silo Enforcement
Independent Revision
Each framework may be revised independently, provided:
The revision does not violate the Non-Merge Rule
The revision does not create circular dependencies
The revision is ratified by Council under its own falsification conditions
No Cross-Contamination
Frameworks in different domains must not:
Share invariants (each domain has its own foundational claims)
Share falsification conditions (what falsifies an ontological claim differs from what falsifies an epistemic claim)
Share jurisdiction (no framework may define validity conditions outside its declared stack position)
Resistance of Reality
Both domains presuppose that reality provides normative constraint.
Ontological frameworks: Reality determines which descriptions are accurate
Epistemic frameworks: Reality determines which interpretations are erroneous
This shared presupposition does not merge the domains. It establishes a common external constraint that prevents both:
Ontological frameworks from becoming arbitrary invention
Epistemic frameworks from becoming arbitrary interpretation
The metaphysics of this constraint is not specified. The architecture requires only that something makes some claims wrong.
Acid Test for Preamble Compliance
Any Council-ratified document passes the Acid Test if:
Asymmetry preserved: The document does not imply that phenomena depend on human knowledge
Non-Merge respected: No statement derives existence from discovery or vice versa
Stack position clear: The document explicitly states its layer in the stack
Coupling protocol followed: References to other frameworks use permitted types only
Silo integrity maintained: The document does not import invariants from other domains
A document failing any condition requires revision before ratification.
Constitutional Lock
This preamble is frozen upon Council ratification.
Revision requires:
Unanimous Council consent
Explicit demonstration that current architecture is falsified or incoherent
Proposed replacement that satisfies all existing compliance tests
No downstream document may override, amend, or reinterpret this preamble.
Archivist Note: Frozen: Non-Merge Rule; Coupling Protocol; Acid Test; Stack architecture Evolving: Worked example appendix; example lists; citation format examples Appendix changes do not constitute constitutional revision.
Citation Format
Documents citing this preamble should use:
This document operates under the Unified Preamble (v1.0), Resolution R-O/L-01. Stack position: [ONTOLOGICAL / EPISTEMIC / CLAIMS / TOOLS] Coupling status: [SILOED / REFERENCES: list]
Appendix: Worked Example
Compliant Statement (Ontological Framework)
"The Ordinans framework describes emergent order in physical systems. Human claims about Ordinans phenomena are subject to the Human Learning Framework (v2.1)."
Analysis: Correctly acknowledges epistemic constraint without deriving Ordinans from human learning.
Compliant Statement (Epistemic Framework)
"The protein structure exists (ontological validity). The claim 'we know the structure because the network identified it' requires DEEP documentation (epistemic legitimacy)."
Analysis: Correctly separates existence from warranted claim.
Non-Compliant Statement
"The Ordinans exists because humans can learn to recognise it."
Analysis: Derives existence from learnability. Violates Non-Merge Rule. Rejected.
Non-Compliant Statement
"Knowledge is whatever reliably tracks truth, so the Learning Framework reduces to reliabilism."
Analysis: Attempts definitional merger. Conflates distinct epistemic positions. Rejected.
End of Unified Preamble
Last updated