Constraints on physical reality arising from a formalization of knowledge

There are (at least) four ways that an agent can acquire information concerning the state of the universe: via observation, control, prediction, or via retrodiction, i.e., memory. Each of these four ways of acquiring information seems to rely on a different kind of physical device (resp., an observation device, a control device, etc.). However it turns out that certain mathematical structure is common to those four types of device. Any device that possesses a certain subset of that structure is known as an "inference device" (ID). Here I review some of the properties of IDs, including their relation with Turing machines, and (more loosely) quantum mechanics. I also review the bounds of the joint abilities of any set of IDs to know facts about the physical universe that contains them. These bounds constrain the possible properties of any universe that contains agents who can acquire information concerning that universe. I then extend this previous work on IDs, by adding to the definition of IDs some of the other mathematical structure that is common to the four ways of acquiring information about the universe but is not captured in the (minimal) definition of IDs. I discuss these extensions of IDs in the context of epistemic logic (especially possible worlds formalisms like Kripke structures and Aumann structures). In particular, I show that these extensions of IDs are not subject to the problem of logical omniscience that plagues many previously studied forms of epistemic logic.

[1]  James P. Crutchfield,et al.  Knowledge and Meaning: Chaos and Complexity , 1992 .

[2]  Theories of almost everything , 2022 .

[3]  Hector Zenil,et al.  A Computable Universe: Understanding and Exploring Nature As Computation , 2012 .

[4]  Ken Binmore,et al.  Common Knowledge and Game Theory , 1988 .

[5]  David H. Wolpert,et al.  Physical limits of inference , 2007, ArXiv.

[6]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  A Turing test for free will , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[7]  Robert J. Aumann,et al.  Interactive epistemology II: Probability , 1999, Int. J. Game Theory.

[8]  David H Wolpert,et al.  Computational capabilities of physical systems. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[9]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  Algorithmic Theories of Everything , 2000, ArXiv.

[10]  R. Aumann Agreeing to disagree. , 1976, Nature cell biology.

[11]  Zurek,et al.  Algorithmic randomness and physical entropy. , 1989, Physical review. A, General physics.

[12]  A. Caticha Entropic dynamics, time and quantum theory , 2010, 1005.2357.

[13]  B. Frieden Science from Fisher Information , 2004 .

[14]  Rohit Parikh Knowledge and the Problem of Logical Omniscience , 1987, ISMIS.

[15]  Ming Li,et al.  An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications , 1997, Texts in Computer Science.

[16]  Carlo Rovelli Meaning = Information + Evolution , 2016 .

[17]  Max Tegmark,et al.  Multiple universes, cosmic coincidences, and other dark matters , 2004 .

[18]  Oron Shagrir,et al.  Why Philosophers Should Care about Computational Complexity , 2013 .

[19]  R. Aumann,et al.  Epistemic Conditions for Nash Equilibrium , 1995 .

[20]  Luca Weisz,et al.  The Life Of The Cosmos , 2016 .

[21]  Drew Fudenberg,et al.  Game theory (3. pr.) , 1991 .

[22]  Max Tegmark The Mathematical Universe , 2007, Foundations of Physics.

[23]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Kurt Godel and the Foundations of Mathematics: Horizons Of Truth , 2014 .

[24]  Philip Goyal,et al.  From information geometry to quantum theory , 2008, 0805.2770.