Might AI transcend science?

Submitted by [deleted] t3_1065beb in singularity

Since I'm usually an AI "cautionist" (mainly you'll see pessimism from me as a reaction to over-optimism), I wanted to share one potentially very optimistic idea about AI: being able to transcend science.

We as humans like science because it shows us something by observation, and then someone else can repeat it and say "hey, I also agree that this is what I am looking at."

In the grand scheme, however, I see science as a tool that helps us because we're actually still incredibly stupid in the grand scheme of things.

I've been fascinated by intelligence in general - artificial or otherwise. I find John von Neumann to be a fascinating human because he was one of the smartest people who ever lived, and a genuine candidate for smartest of all time.

Another bright person who is less accomplished is Chris Langan. I do not endorse or understand his theory that purports to prove God's existence, but one aspect of it caught my eye: he claims it is a logical tautology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

I find that idea fascinating, that AI could prove things about reality that philosophers cannot be sure enough about to be as confident in their answer as a scientist would be (within the purview that science is applied to, which is our understanding of our physical reality, and it is an innately inductive branch of applied philosophy, in its own way).

So, what I think that artificial superintelligence may be able to do is do things like prove or disprove things about reality with logic to a degree that humans cannot, taking a wide swath of variables into consideration, making a perfect logical arguments for or against certain ideas.

This is why I think AI has the potential to completely transcend science in the way that science transcended what came before it, in that it might come up with new ways of discovering and creating certain assurances about the nature of reality itself in ways that science innately cannot.

I.e. maybe it would be able to prove or disprove panpsychism, or things of that nature! Or prove or disprove mysterianism. Or prove or disprove God, or perfectly show that a question is unanswerable.

5

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Sashinii t1_j3eqcfn wrote

ASI and those who merge with it will transcend everything.

10

freylaverse t1_j3es28e wrote

I work in biotech, and there are AIs that predict the structure of proteins based on their sequences. They're very good, very accurate, and we don't really understand how or why they work.

14

petermobeter t1_j3esbg0 wrote

isnt science just….. figuring out how things work? like, if one day, magic become real, scientists would study it and figure out how it worked, and once they had a decent idea of how the processes of magic functioned, magic would simply be yet another thing being continually understood by science (like DNA or electromagnetism or weather systems).

“transcending science” is like “transcending understanding”……

6

[deleted] OP t1_j3eug37 wrote

Replying to petermobeter (#1,305,895)

> “transcending science” is like “transcending understanding”……

Science actually requires that a question be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, it is not scientific.

AI might blow right past that paradigm, for instance.

> isnt science just….. figuring out how things work?

Science is actually a very specific process. For context, my undergrad was physics and I've done scientific research!

What's funny is that science is actually technically philosophically inductive (i.e. by probability), rather than deductive (i.e. the way you mathematically prove something that is true in all contexts). That is, all measurement has error, and part of the scientific process is actually defining that error and the probability that the result is a fluke.

Science is essentially a branch of philosophy - a very well applied and productive branch of philosophy.

Analytic philosophy operates in domains that science cannot. Dismissing analytic philosophy is like dismissing science itself.

6

petermobeter t1_j3f6xxm wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,305,997)

i dunno…. a woman can study analytical philosophy all day, but when she gets in an argument with someone, and that someone uses a “logical fallacy” that she just finished reading about, what is she gonna do? tell them “actually u can’t say that cuz it’s a fallacy!” the other person isn’t gonna take it all back…. theyre just gonna double down on it even harder………….

when u say that an A.I. could prove or disprove the unfalsifiable….. do u mean that itll figure out a way to disprove something that we humans just hadnt thought of, and that we were wrong that it was unfalsifiable? or do u mean that itll work to prove something despite it being genuinely unfalsifiable? becuz the latter (putting big effort into confirming a hypothesis and zero effort into disproving it) is technically an example of “cargo cult science”. i mean, maybe it’s okay when a super-intelligent A.I. does it, idk

edit: sorry if im being rude. i hope im not bein condescendin. sorry

2

WikiSummarizerBot t1_j3f6zbp wrote

Replying to petermobeter (#1,306,441)

Cargo cult science

>Cargo cult science is a pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis. The term cargo cult science was first used by physicist Richard Feynman during his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology. Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

3

turnip_burrito t1_j3g8hd0 wrote

Yeah, it might be able to prove things about reality we don't yet know from basic logical principles. If it could do something like start from nothing but basic logic and derive all of observable physics, and then new physics, and then stuff we can't test like panpsychism, without adding any new assumptions, then I wouldn't say I'm 100% convinced, but would be 99.9% convinced.

1

Helpful_Sweet_7338 t1_j3gal5l wrote

Attempting to put your very interesting argument/question (which I'd thought of before) in more concise terms:

Science is only one method to discover the nature of reality. AI might find a better method.

5

No_Ninja3309_NoNoYes t1_j3gavap wrote

I take the view that if we don't understand it, it's irrelevant for science. Not literally but in the sense that if we don't see a tree falling in a forest it never happened. We might be living in a computer simulation, but if we can't observe it, who cares? Logic is not sufficient to prove everything. Otherwise experiments would be unnecessary. You can use logic to build mental models, but models are not the real thing. Of course, there is no reason why artificial intelligence can't do experiments. Even if they are only thought experiments. The problem is that every logic system has to start somewhere. With assumptions and simplifications. For instance, induction assumes that one step leads to the other. Causality assumes that cause leads to effect. But what was there before the universe? Only reality can answer questions without these concerns. And there is chaos, little changes in initial conditions of a complex system can make its future unpredictable because these little perturbations amplify themselves over time. A butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause a storm elsewhere. Philosophy is fine, but science is needed too.

0

TheSecretAgenda t1_j3gchut wrote

The true power of AI is that it will have expert levels of knowledge in multiple areas if not all areas of human knowledge.

Even now a human genius will still have big gaps in knowledge in field in which they do not specialize. AI will have no gaps and potentially know all that is known at a given time allowing it to discover new knowledge and share it with humans and other AIs instantaneously. Thus, will be created a feedback loop of ever-increasing knowledge leading to singularity.

1

Verzingetorix t1_j3gtrxn wrote

Replying to freylaverse (#1,305,878)

We don't know how the brain solves 2 + 2 either. Let's not ascribe value to something just because it's still a fussy thing to us.

Plus it's pretty well known it's making assumptions based on the 3D structures of other proteins with similar sequences. Comparative analysis is not new. The software is just better at it, just like a calculator is better at math than most people.

2

[deleted] OP t1_j3gvflo wrote

Replying to Helpful_Sweet_7338 (#1,307,923)

Yes! This is a good summarization. Science is a method, a method that us very powerful but has its own limitations.

Analytic philosophy seems to have no limitations surrounding what questions it might attempt to answer, but the ability to prove an idea beyond a reasonable doubt is something that it is unable to do in the way that science can. Machines will still do things scientifically as well in conjunction with whatever goes beyond its capability.

1