Since r⊂W0×W1, Qr is defined on r; indeed, it is non-zero on r only. The underlying model has functionsr0 and r1 to M0 and M1, which push forward Qr in a unique way - to Q0 and Q1 respectively. Essentially:
There is an underlying reality Mr of which M0 and M1 are different, consistent, facets.
Indeed, even in the toy example above, the ideal gas laws and the "atoms bouncing around" model don't have a Q-preserving morphism between them. The atoms bouncing model is more accurate, and the idea gas laws are just an approximation of these (for example, they ignore molar mass).
Let's make the much weaker assumption that r is Q-birelational - essentially that if any wi has non-zero Qi-measure (i.e. Qi(wi)>0), then r relates it to at least one other wj which also has non-zero Qj-measure. Equivalently, if we ignore all elements with zero Qi-measure, then r and r−1 are surjective relations between what's left. Then we have a more general underlying morphism result:
Statement of the theorem
Let r be a Q-birelational morphism between M0=(F0,Q0) and M1=(F1,Q1), and pick any 0≤α≤1.
Then there exists a generalised model Mαr=(F0⊔F1,Qαr), with Qαr=0 off of r⊂W0×W1 (this Qαr is not necessarily uniquely defined). This has natural functional morphisms r0:Mαr→M0 and r1:Mαr→M1.
Those ri push forward Qαr to Mi, such that for the distance metric Ldefined on morphisms,
|r0(Qαr)−Q0|1=αL(r),
|r1(Qαr)−Q1|1=(1−α)L(r).
By the definition of L, this is the minimum |r0(Qαr)−Q0|1+|r1(Qαr)−Q1|1 we can get. The proof is in this footnote[1].
Accuracy of models
If α=0, we're saying that M0 is a correct model, and that M1 is an approximation. Then the underlying model reflects this, with M0 a true facet of the underlying model, and M1 the closest-to-accurate facet that's possible given the connection with M0. If α=1, then it's reversed: M0 is an approximation, and M1 a correct model. For α between those two value, we see both M0 and M1 as approximations of the underlying reality Mr.
Measuring ontology change
This approach means that L(r) can be used to measure the extent of an ontology crisis.
Assume M0 is a the initial ontology, and M1 is the new ontology. Then M1 might include entirely new situations, or at least unusual ones that were not normally thought about. The r connects the old ontology with the new one: it details the crisis.
In an ontology crisis, there are several elements:
A completely different way of seeing the world.
The new and old ways result in similar predictions in standard situations.
The new way results in very different predictions in unusual situations.
The two ontologies give different probabilities to unusual situations.
The measure L amalgamates points 2., 3., and 4. above, giving an idea of the severity of the ontology crisis in practice. A low L(r) might be because because the new and old ways have very similar predictions, or because the situations where they differ might be unlikely.
For point 1, the "completely different way of seeing the world", this is about how features change and relate. The L(r) is indifferent to that, but we might measure this indirectly. We can already use a generalisation of mutual information to measure the relation between the distribution Q and the features F. We could use that to measure the relation between F0⊔F1, the features of M1r, and Q1r, its probability distribution. Since Q1r is more strongly determined by Q1, this could[2] measure how hard it is to express Q0 in terms of F1.
Because r is bi-relational, there is a Q′1 such that r is a Q-preserving morphism between M0 and M′1(F1,Q′1); and furthermore |Q′0−Q0|1=L(r). Let M0r be an underlying model of this morphism.
Similarly, there is a Q′0 such that r is a Q-preserving morphism between M′0=(F0,Q′0) and M1; and furthermore |Q′1−Q1|1=L(r). Let M1r be an underlying model of this morphism. Note that M0r and M1r differ only in their Q0r and Q1r; they have same feature sets and same worlds.
Then define Mαr as having Qαr=(1−α)Q0r+αQ1r.
Then r0(Qαr)=(1−α)Q0+αQ′0, so
We've already seen that if M0=(F0,Q0) and M1=(F1,Q1) are generalised models, with the relation r⊂W0×W1 a Q-preserving morphism between them, then there is an underlying model Mr=(F0⊔F1,Qr) between them.
Since r⊂W0×W1, Qr is defined on r; indeed, it is non-zero on r only. The underlying model has functions r0 and r1 to M0 and M1, which push forward Qr in a unique way - to Q0 and Q1 respectively. Essentially:
Illustrated, for gas laws:
Underlying model of imperfect morphisms
But we've seen that relations r need not be Q-preserving; there are weaker conditions that also form categories.
Indeed, even in the toy example above, the ideal gas laws and the "atoms bouncing around" model don't have a Q-preserving morphism between them. The atoms bouncing model is more accurate, and the idea gas laws are just an approximation of these (for example, they ignore molar mass).
Let's make the much weaker assumption that r is Q-birelational - essentially that if any wi has non-zero Qi-measure (i.e. Qi(wi)>0), then r relates it to at least one other wj which also has non-zero Qj-measure. Equivalently, if we ignore all elements with zero Qi-measure, then r and r−1 are surjective relations between what's left. Then we have a more general underlying morphism result:
Statement of the theorem
Let r be a Q-birelational morphism between M0=(F0,Q0) and M1=(F1,Q1), and pick any 0≤α≤1.
Then there exists a generalised model Mαr=(F0⊔F1,Qαr), with Qαr=0 off of r⊂W0×W1 (this Qαr is not necessarily uniquely defined). This has natural functional morphisms r0:Mαr→M0 and r1:Mαr→M1.
Those ri push forward Qαr to Mi, such that for the distance metric L defined on morphisms,
By the definition of L, this is the minimum |r0(Qαr)−Q0|1+|r1(Qαr)−Q1|1 we can get. The proof is in this footnote[1].
Accuracy of models
If α=0, we're saying that M0 is a correct model, and that M1 is an approximation. Then the underlying model reflects this, with M0 a true facet of the underlying model, and M1 the closest-to-accurate facet that's possible given the connection with M0. If α=1, then it's reversed: M0 is an approximation, and M1 a correct model. For α between those two value, we see both M0 and M1 as approximations of the underlying reality Mr.
Measuring ontology change
This approach means that L(r) can be used to measure the extent of an ontology crisis.
Assume M0 is a the initial ontology, and M1 is the new ontology. Then M1 might include entirely new situations, or at least unusual ones that were not normally thought about. The r connects the old ontology with the new one: it details the crisis.
In an ontology crisis, there are several elements:
The measure L amalgamates points 2., 3., and 4. above, giving an idea of the severity of the ontology crisis in practice. A low L(r) might be because because the new and old ways have very similar predictions, or because the situations where they differ might be unlikely.
For point 1, the "completely different way of seeing the world", this is about how features change and relate. The L(r) is indifferent to that, but we might measure this indirectly. We can already use a generalisation of mutual information to measure the relation between the distribution Q and the features F. We could use that to measure the relation between F0⊔F1, the features of M1r, and Q1r, its probability distribution. Since Q1r is more strongly determined by Q1, this could[2] measure how hard it is to express Q0 in terms of F1.
Because r is bi-relational, there is a Q′1 such that r is a Q-preserving morphism between M0 and M′1(F1,Q′1); and furthermore |Q′0−Q0|1=L(r). Let M0r be an underlying model of this morphism.
Similarly, there is a Q′0 such that r is a Q-preserving morphism between M′0=(F0,Q′0) and M1; and furthermore |Q′1−Q1|1=L(r). Let M1r be an underlying model of this morphism. Note that M0r and M1r differ only in their Q0r and Q1r; they have same feature sets and same worlds.
Then define Mαr as having Qαr=(1−α)Q0r+αQ1r. Then r0(Qαr)=(1−α)Q0+αQ′0, so
|r0(Qαr)−Q0|1=|αQ0−αQ′0|1=α|Q0−Q′0|=αL(r).
Similarly, |r1(Qαr)−Q1|1=(1−α)L(r). ↩︎
This is a suggestion; there may be more direct ways of measuring this distance or complexity. ↩︎