This is not really correct. An ontology is the system containing the buckets, and I would agree with your claim here that having lots of buckets is useful, but having lots of ontologies is having different ways of segmenting the same reality into sets of buckets. That doesn’t help more rapidly pick out what someone else is saying, though—it instead illustrates why locating something in concept space doesn’t work the way you describe.
For instance, knowing multiple color ontologies might be helpful in understanding how colors can be split up, so that in Russian, голубой is more akin to cyan, while синий is more blue, but in Hebrew, they distinguish between תכלת, light blue, and כחול, other blue colors. (They also have the transliterated word cyan, ציאן.) In this case, the benefit isn’t more rapidly picking out what the other person is saying, but is instead understanding how they might be pointing to something different than what you assumed. It also lets you understand that “grue” and “bleen” might be less unnatural as categories than you would have assumed.
So having multiple ontologies actually increases ambiguity to a level that more correctly captures reality. Unfortunately, contra your claims, the amount of data it takes to correctly identify the ontology, rather than the category within a known ontology—is very large.
This is not really correct. An ontology is the system containing the buckets, and I would agree with your claim here that having lots of buckets is useful, but having lots of ontologies is having different ways of segmenting the same reality into sets of buckets. That doesn’t help more rapidly pick out what someone else is saying, though—it instead illustrates why locating something in concept space doesn’t work the way you describe.
For instance, knowing multiple color ontologies might be helpful in understanding how colors can be split up, so that in Russian, голубой is more akin to cyan, while синий is more blue, but in Hebrew, they distinguish between תכלת, light blue, and כחול, other blue colors. (They also have the transliterated word cyan, ציאן.) In this case, the benefit isn’t more rapidly picking out what the other person is saying, but is instead understanding how they might be pointing to something different than what you assumed. It also lets you understand that “grue” and “bleen” might be less unnatural as categories than you would have assumed.
So having multiple ontologies actually increases ambiguity to a level that more correctly captures reality. Unfortunately, contra your claims, the amount of data it takes to correctly identify the ontology, rather than the category within a known ontology—is very large.