Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Pavel Poluian: on 5/16/20 at 12:55pm UTC, wrote We carefully read and discussed everything. There is something to think...

Kwame Bennett: on 5/1/20 at 20:23pm UTC, wrote Dear Roman, Excellent Essay, please take a look at the long form version...

Michael muteru: on 4/28/20 at 21:40pm UTC, wrote hi roman I appreciate your comprehension of human observer.Do human...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 4/15/20 at 20:05pm UTC, wrote Thank you very much, Roman, for your quick reply and link. I'm starting to...

Roman Yampolskiy: on 4/15/20 at 19:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thank you for your kind words and for sharing some...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 4/15/20 at 16:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Roman, Your extremely important essay makes it possible to conclude:...

Roman Yampolskiy: on 3/12/20 at 19:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Flavio, Thank you for your kind words and useful pointers. I look...

Flavio Del Santo: on 3/11/20 at 16:36pm UTC, wrote Thank you for this well-written and stimulating essay. Let me add...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Agnew: "You see Zeeya how much fun there is in graviton noise...here is the CMB..." in The Noise of Gravitons

John Cox: "Ulla, You speak of EM emission as being 'one ray' which I can imagine as a..." in The Noise of Gravitons

Jeremy Fiennes: "The attachment, "QUANTUM REALITY: REALLY INDETERMINATE", has two principal..." in Alternative Models of...

Ulla Mattfolk: "can you give us the link, pls. Ulla." in AI, Consciousness,...

PRASAD DIVATE: "Dear Jonathan, I recently read after sedenions come trigintaduonions! Has..." in AI, Consciousness,...

Joe Fisher: "All visible humanly contrived information contains supposedly finite..." in Time to Think

Noah Isabella: "You can either choose both Box A and B, or just Box B. But here's the..." in Outside the Box


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Time to Think
Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.


FQXi FORUM
September 25, 2020

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Unverifiability, Unexplainability & Unpredictability by Roman V Yampolskiy [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Roman V Yampolskiy wrote on Jan. 28, 2020 @ 16:47 GMT
Essay Abstract

Optimistic plans of mathematicians to automatically uncover all truths have been thwarted by Gödel’s Incompleteness and Turing’s Undecidability among many other impossibility results. In this essay we describe a more general limitation on mathematical proofs, Unverifiability, along with Unpredictability and Unexplainability of powerful knowledge discovery agents. We conclude with analysis of limits to what we can prove, predict or understand on physics and science in general, as well as safety of artificial intelligence in particular.

Author Bio

Dr. Roman V. Yampolskiy is a Tenured Associate Professor in the department of Computer Science and Engineering. He is the founding and current director of the Cyber Security Lab and an author of many books including Artificial Superintelligence: a Futuristic Approach. During his tenure at UofL, Dr. Yampolskiy has been recognized as: Distinguished Teaching Professor, Professor of the Year, Faculty Favorite, Top 4 Faculty, Leader in Engineering Education, Top 10 of Online College Professor of the Year, and Outstanding Early Career in Education award. Dr. Yampolskiy’s main areas of interest are Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 28, 2020 @ 21:51 GMT
I found your essay very clearly written, interesting educational and topical.The idea of equating a mathematics verifier with a physics observer is an interesting one. However I don't fully agree. Physics observers have a partial viewpoint that relates to a particular context and perspective of observation or measurement. So the conclusion is not impartial. Observers with similar viewpoints can...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Roman V Yampolskiy replied on Jan. 29, 2020 @ 15:47 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Thank you for your kind words and helpful feedback! In a way, different verifiers also come from different contexts, as a particular one is unlikely to contain all of known mathematics, but each one will have some subset, perhaps not fully integrated with all other domains of mathematical knowledge. So their conclusions may also be not impartial, but biased by their...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Jochen Szangolies wrote on Jan. 29, 2020 @ 17:21 GMT
Dear Roman,

your essay contains much food for thought, and I'll have to take some time digesting its contents. You very deftly eliminate a naive view of mathematical proof, according to which once something's proven, we know it to be true, and that's that.

I wonder about how to extend this framework. Is it, for instance, possible to construct a complexity theory for proofs? Say,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Roman V Yampolskiy replied on Jan. 29, 2020 @ 18:40 GMT
Dear Jochen,

Thank you for reading my work and taking the time to comment. You are suggesting some interesting directions for future work, some of which have been attempted and others are still waiting to be tried. I do try to address such alternatives in the appendix, and will try to do more for your ideas in my future work. Thank you!

Best,

Roman Yampolskiy

Bookmark and Share

Jochen Szangolies replied on Feb. 2, 2020 @ 15:58 GMT
Dear Roman,

thank you for your answer. I think that it's an interesting thread to consider whether to merely certify a proof, one always needs to be capable of checking whether it is correct. Certain proofs, if you possess them, may enable you to perform certain tasks---hence, your ability to perform these tasks will certify your having that proof, up to any given standard of certainty (strictly smaller than absolute certainty, of course). This sort of thing seems closely related, to me, to the problem of certifying whether one party has a certain capacity (say, access to a universal quantum computer) without the other party necessarily having that capacity (a quantum computer to check).

Therefore, it doesn't seem quite right to me that each verifier necessarily needs capacities equal to or exceeding that of the system it verifies; indeed, there may be ways for you to convince me you've proven something without me having any hope of ever checking the proof, which would indicate that a proof-checker is not the only possible kind of verifier imaginable.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roman V Yampolskiy replied on Feb. 2, 2020 @ 16:32 GMT
I think that makes sense. Something definitely to consider as I continue work in this domain. Thank you!

Bookmark and Share


Joseph Maria Hoebe wrote on Jan. 30, 2020 @ 14:54 GMT
You write in your nice expose at the end: our results are very timely and should allow for a better understanding of limits to verifiability and resources required to get desired levels of confidence in the results.

Please, allow me to comment:

The development of Being goes from total unformedness to total formedness.

Observing observes and forms "That which is" as a world. ...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Roman V Yampolskiy replied on Jan. 30, 2020 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Jos,

Thanks for taking the time to read my work. We, as the scientific community, a an ultimate verifier of truth.

Best,

Roman Yampolskiy

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 31, 2020 @ 16:11 GMT
Dear Roman V Yampolskiy, after reading your essay, I realized that I should ask you to verify the new Cartesian generalization of modern physics, which is based on the identity of physical space and Descartes’s matter. According to this identity, it is common for physical space to move relative to itself, since it is matter. Arguing in this way, I showed that the probability density of states in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Roman V Yampolskiy replied on Jan. 31, 2020 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Boris,

Thank you for the invitation, I will take a look.

Best,

Roman Yampolskiy

Bookmark and Share


Moritz Stautner wrote on Feb. 12, 2020 @ 16:07 GMT
Hi Roman,

I like your overview of the reductionist scientific paradigm in his many empirical, theoretical and pratical implications very much. But I personally can't find any deep new conclusions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you reduce all scientific concepts to an abstract (turing-related...) 'reduction' and that's really it?

Greetings

Morris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Roman V Yampolskiy replied on Feb. 12, 2020 @ 16:14 GMT
Morris,

Thank you for liking my work.

If you are looking for new conclusions, I would suggest concentrating on the subsections on AI.

Best,

Roman

Bookmark and Share


Luca Valeri wrote on Feb. 13, 2020 @ 11:00 GMT
Hi Roman,

sorry for this long reply. But I was really intrigued by your essay, which inspired me to a lot of thoughts.

In physics I used to be a bit of a Platonist interested only in theoretical physics, which is reflecting the true forms and not much interested in experimental physics that are concerned only with the shadows of ideal forms. In your essay you made the theory of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Roman V Yampolskiy replied on Feb. 13, 2020 @ 16:24 GMT
Hey Luca,

Thank you for your detailed comment.

“I am not up to date in AI research and I found your exposition very interesting. Were you able to give to 'comprehensibility' a precise mathematical meaning?”

Please see: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.03869

“But could two minds that have the same amount of states comprehend each other?”

Please see: https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1362

“In your physics section you seem to imply that the probabilistic nature of mathematical verification implies the probabilistic nature of mathematics and hence the probabilistic nature of physics (=QM) in the MU. Is that so?”

Yes, that is one of my ideas.

Best,

Roman

Bookmark and Share


Member Noson S. Yanofsky wrote on Mar. 8, 2020 @ 17:01 GMT
Dear Roman,

Thank you for disentangling all these different limitations of human knowledge.

Science made great strides by formulating the intuitive notion of a computation with a Turing machine. With this formulation, we were able to conquer the notion of undecidability. It would be nice to formulate the many intuitive concepts you bring to light.

You have a line:...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Roman V Yampolskiy replied on Mar. 9, 2020 @ 00:07 GMT
Dear Noson,

Thank you for your comment. You are asking great questions about how IQ of multiple agents can be combined. This week, a book chapter of mine (chapter 1: TOWARDS THE MATHEMATICS OF INTELLIGENCE) on this topic is out in the book: https://vernonpress.com/book/935 I think it answers some of your questions, but still leaves much room for future work.

Best,

Roman

Bookmark and Share


Flavio Del Santo wrote on Mar. 11, 2020 @ 16:36 GMT
Thank you for this well-written and stimulating essay.

Let me add something to your sentence: “The Born rule [76], a fundamental component of Copenhagen interpretation, provides a link between mathematics and experimental observations.” . I would like to point out to you that the interpretation known as QBsim, whose author explicitly consider a refinement of Copenhagen, takes the Born rule as an element of reality. In fact, the only “element of reality”, while the rest is all subjective.

I invite you to have a look at my essay

regarding the role of “elements of reality” that we grant to mathematical entities like numbers and what are the consequences for natural sciences.

Very high rate from me, and good luck with the contest!

Flavio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Roman V Yampolskiy replied on Mar. 12, 2020 @ 19:17 GMT
Dear Flavio,

Thank you for your kind words and useful pointers. I look forward to reading suggested materials.

Best,

Dr. Yampolskiy

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Roman,

Your extremely important essay makes it possible to conclude: the centenary problem of the “foundations of mathematics” (justification, substantiation), which Morris Kline beautifully presented in “Mathematics: Loss of Certainty,” remains the philosophical and mathematical problem No. 1 for cognition as a whole. Uncertainty in the foundations of knowledge, the "language...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Roman V Yampolskiy replied on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 19:05 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your kind words and for sharing some interesting references. I will be sure to read them. As to your last question, recent work by Wolfram may be an interesting direction to follow in that regard: https://www.wolframphysics.org/

Best,

Roman

Bookmark and Share

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 20:05 GMT
Thank you very much, Roman, for your quick reply and link. I'm starting to read with interest.

Best,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael muteru wrote on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 21:40 GMT
hi roman I appreciate your comprehension of human observer.Do human selection effects filter into the eventual outcome of an experiment ,or vice versa.? please read/rate my take on my essay -https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.i would greatly love to hear you on this topic. thanks and All the best to you

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kwame A Bennett wrote on May. 1, 2020 @ 20:23 GMT
Dear Roman,

Excellent Essay, please take a look at the long form version of my essay;

The sections where I compare biological complexity to computer, you will find that part very interesting

Please take a look at my essay A grand Introduction to Darwinian mechanic

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3549

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pavel Vadimovich Poluian wrote on May. 16, 2020 @ 12:55 GMT
We carefully read and discussed everything. There is something to think about. The scientific perspective is visible. Your ideas are very close to us! One of us works at the department of philosophy, the other at the department of computer science. Therefore, your essay was interesting to both of us. We really liked the use of the principle of "regression to infinity" for an observer in physics and for checking evidence in mathematics. This comparison is very heuristic. We liked the fact that you do not come to agnosticism. We believe in the possibilities of reason. But we think your approach has overtaken time. While in science there is not even a recognition of the objectivity of information. Therefore, ideas of this type are perceived as metaphors.

Now we are implementing a startup project to develop a fundamental ontology for integrating various ontologies of subject areas. We are creating a digital platform for this integration. Perhaps we can even establish mutually beneficial cooperation with you.

We hope you find our essay interesting.

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.