What can we know about that which we cannot even imagine?

I love the question that's the title of this blog post. The question didn't come from me, but from David Wolpert. I learned about a paper he wrote when it was mentioned in a recent issue of New Scientist.

But there is a deeper question here: can we be sure that logic, even a reformed kind, is enough to understand the universe in all its fullness?

It is a question that David Wolpert at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico has been thinking about for decades. In a recent monograph, he spelled out his argument that it is more likely than not that there is some higher mode of logic that could be used to understand the universe, but that human minds wouldn't be able to grasp.

Just think of that humble linguistic device, the question. Wolpert says there are creatures -- things like a single-celled paramecium -- that couldn't conceive of the idea of a question. In fact, according to our standards of intelligence, every other species on Earth is limited in some regard in the way it understands the world around it.

Why should we be any different? "We are the paramecia," says Wolpert. "What is beyond us?"

Wolpert thinks there are ways we could potentially get at higher systems of thought that go beyond logic  as we know it. Perhaps it will be a super Turing machine that can transcend the normal rules of computing or an intelligent form of extraterrestrial life that shares its wisdom with us.

Perhaps it will be something different altogether. And what will this new plane of understanding be like?  "I can't conceive of it," says Wolpert. "But that's the whole point."

Wolpert's essay is 22 pages long, 30 including footnotes. I read it fairly quickly tonight. It deserves another reading. Maybe several readings. Parts are fairly dense, but most of the essay is understandable to anyone willing to make their way through some sophisticated thinking about the limits of human knowledge. 

Here's a PDF file.
Download What can we know about that which we cannot even imagine?

lt's hard to disagree with Wolpert. Since every species on Earth is limited in its knowledge of what the world is all about, why would we humans be any different? 

Here's a passage from the essay that I especially liked. Note: if you're a religious believer, or an admirer of mysticism, the same limitations of the human mind apply to you also. Meaning, even if you don't embrace logic or language as a guide to reality, you embrace some other human capacity, which leaves Wolpert's argument untouched.

To gain some insight into these questions, note that the highly limited form of all of human mathematics — sequences of finite strings of symbols — just happens to be exactly the structure that we humans use to converse with one another: the structure of human language. Indeed, starting back with Wittgenstein, it has become commonplace to identify mathematics as a special case of human language, casting its structure explicitly as grammar in the same sense as grammars arise in human conversation.

Note as well that it is a poetic cliche that libraries, and in particular mathematics libraries, are places where we converse (!) with past minds. The implication is that the contents of all the mathematics textbooks in those libraries is part of a conversation; i.e., an exercise in human language. Indeed, historically, mathematics textbooks and papers developed from written correspondence, i.e., from exercises in human language.

So, the form of human mathematics, and of our SAM more generally, just happens to exactly coincide with the form of inter-human communication. Some writers have pointed this out before, that human language’s design matches that of formal logic and Turing machine theory [16]. They have taken this as a wonderful stroke of fortune, that we just so happen have a cognitive prosthesis — human language — that is capable of capturing formal logic. After all — they presume — this means we are capable of capturing all the laws of the physical universe.

A cynic might comment with heavy irony, “Gee, how lucky can you get? Humans have exactly the cognitive capabilities needed to capture all aspects of physical reality, and not a drop more!” This cynic might go on to wonder whether an ant, who is only capable of formulating the “rules of the universe” in terms of pheromone trails, would conclude that it is a great stroke of fortune that they happen to have the cognitive capability of doing precisely that; or whether a phototropic plant would conclude that it is a stroke of fortune that they happen to have the cognitive capability to track the sun, since that must mean that they can formulate the rules of the universe.

Sure, it’s possible that it is just a coincidence, that for some unknown reason the deepest nature of physical reality is expressible in terms of one of our cognitive prostheses. But it certainly seems as plausible that social computation is simply the most sophisticated cognitive prosthesis we have ever developed, and that even exploiting it to the hilt only allows us to capture a sliver of physical reality.

Yes, our science and mathematics — or more precisely, what they seem to be developing into — may be a complete description of what we understand physical reality to be. They might be developing into a complete description of what is experimentally accessible to us, even if only indirectly, both now and in the future [94, 95, 108, 109].

But in an exactly parallel manner, a putative ant- level theory of reality in terms of pheromone trails and environmental chemical signals could capture all that ants “understand physical reality to be”, of all that ants can “experimentally access”. And just as there is a huge expanse of physical reality lying beyond the charmed sliver that ants can conceive of, it may be that there is a huge expanse of physical reality beyond our ability to even conceive of.

After all, social computation — human language — was developed for communal sessions of shooting the shit around the campfire after a successful mastodon hunt (plus a few other purposes). There is no reason to believe that features well- suited for such exercises in nocturnal braggadocio can also be used to glean substantial insights into the shape of the hands of the Cosmic Baker, based solely on some crumbs we have discovered, scattered on their kitchen floor.

Comments

[Ron E.]

Wolpert says there are creatures -- things like a single-celled paramecium -- that couldn't conceive of the idea of a question. In fact, according to our standards of intelligence, every other species on Earth is limited in some regard in the way it understands the world around it. Why should we be any different?”
Brian adds; “lt's hard to disagree with Wolpert. Since every species on Earth is limited in its knowledge of what the world is all about, why would we humans be any different?”“

I repeat the quote I posted previously from an article from ‘Big Think’: “Humanity has two old, profound questions. The first is about the origin of the Universe; the second about the origin of life.
Unfortunately, there are physical limitations that make research difficult. We can only see back in time to 300,000 years after the Big Bang. We don't exactly know what happened be-fore that.
In much the same way, biologists can trace all of life back to a single kind of organism. But we do not know what came before it.”

Perhaps it is simply a case of we humans ‘believe’ we are different and even expect that sometime in the future we will be able to answer all the of today’s unanswered questions. Okay, so we are an ultra-inquisitive species and love (rather than need) to ask abstract questions, but why do we obsess so on needing to find the origins of life and the universe?

It could of course be our natural inquisitiveness – or it could be a case of human arrogance, arrogance that stems from that aspect of man that believes itself to be something special. The arrogance that creates God’s, sages, teachers, masters and so on, with their claims of spiritual apprehensions of truths that are beyond the intellect. The need to know, to feel secure and special is so rife with us that we resort to such mental inventions and beliefs to satisfy our ego (self) based obsessions.

We are just one manifestation of life amongst the many – and one that gets carried away with opinions about itself. Evolution shows that all species eventually die out, the vacuum being replaced by some other kind – why should we be any different? No doubt our ingenuity can help us avoid extinction for some time yet, but if that’s so, then rather than continue to risk our demise through self-centred interests perhaps our further evolution would need to be of a more intelligent, integrated type.

[Appreciative Reader]

Looks like an interesting read! (I've only gone through your post, Brian, but absolutely, the article proper you've linked to, although longish, looks very promising!)

-------

Heh, um, you reading this? This man Wolpert seems to be saying exactly what you said to me in that other thread, when he sarcastically remarks: "...Gee, how lucky can you get? Humans have exactly the cognitive capabilities needed to capture all aspects of physical reality, and not a drop more!"

I haven't read the article yet; but my response to just this much, would be more or less similar to what I'd said to you there:

First, our cognitive capacities, much like our perceptive capabilities, are limited enough. However, we do possess the means to extend our perceptive capabilities dramatically. And we well might possess the means to extend our cognitive capabiities as well, both via prosthetics, as well as by making use of AI and suchlike that might jump over the reasoning part and present us directly with the solutions to whatever we are working on (and that is beyond our cognitive capability). And nor is that a faraway sci-fi scenario, we may be very close already to something like that happening.

And second, if there are aspects to reality that are fundamentally outside of our human capacity to apprehend, even when our capacities are extended (as discussed in the paragraph above), well then, while certainly that is possible, but that is completely totally entirely moot. There's functionally no difference at all between "There is nothing more to reality beyond this", and "There's lots to reality beyond this, but all of that is fundamentally and completely beyond our capacity to apprehend even approximately."

[um]

@ AR

Yes I have gone through it and found the possible similarities with what I wrote.

The difference is that I restrict myself just to the functional possibilities of scientific work, its field and tools. I have not made an suggestion or statement about reality.

I try to understand the reality from a human perspective in the way I look upon trees and birds.

One can know a thing by being a thing.

If I consider myself and for a moment forget about a hand being "my" hand, I can start to ponder about that hand , its function etc. Some of the findings of scientist that have escaped their ivory towers, are useful in finding answers.

In the end these findings allows me to look at interactions etc.

Whatever we know is build upon the biological fundamentals of the human being. Everything is related to that ..EVERYTHING ... even logic ... and coffee ... hahaha

We, like all existing things are self-supportive closed systems .. yes even the boulders.
They all harness a certain amount of energy, enery they cannot maintain and for that reason will die out eventually.

We live in culture as natural beings ... whatever we do, thing and feel is related to SURVIVAL ....of that bound energy.

Existence is a wonder and scientists, without having that in mind, are taking away that wonder. ...they grab and hold what is not theirs.

[SantMat64]

The basic selling point of Sant mat is that we can know God, and visit heaven, before we die. The attraction of this selling point over other religions is obvious. Why spend one's life in faith that God and heaven exist when these spiritual things can be directly experienced first hand?

But it's not so simple, as anyone who's spent time as a Sant mat initiate knows. Even a single visit to a Sant mat satsang will confirm that this promised first hand knowledge is on the 4 life installment plan. That is, these satsangs are never occasions of rejoicing on inner spiritual confirmation of the indisputable reality of the spiritual worlds upon worlds, but rather a pep talk to not lose faith in having sat on one's butt for 3 hours a day for 20 years and not really have experience anything that merits secure knowledge of transcendental realities.

So what does this signify? For one thing, we are always working from belief, not knowledge.

The things we think we "know" are usually heavily influenced by group think, and not experience.

We habitually hand wave away any arguments that conflict with our beliefs.

[Ron E.]

@Um. I like that you say that you:- “try to understand the reality from a human perspective in the way I look upon trees and birds.” And: - “Whatever we know is build upon the biological fundamentals of the human being. Everything is related to that ..EVERYTHING ... even logic ... and coffee ... hahaha.” Though not so much the statement: - “We, like all existing things are self-supportive closed systems .. yes even the boulders.”

I take the view that – although it seems we are ‘self-supporting closed systems’ we are very much interdependent on the total environment we exist in. We are physically and psychologically dependent on everything and everybody else. Mentally and socially we have been formed by the people around us; the contents that constitute our minds and from which we navigate our way through life, have been absorbed from that culture.

One other view I take is that rather than being closed systems that make us separate beings, we (whether we know it or not), only feel separate owing to the fact that it is the ego or ‘self-structure’ which we believe or think we are, that appears to keep us separate.

[um]

@ Ron

When pointing at one thing one can not pointing at other things that are equally true

Every separate unity is composed of millions other separate unities all working together in a mysterious way to form that bigger unity.

We are as seperate unities also part of a freater unity, that is right.

Feeling separate, having an ego, is a necessity in my understanding, an inborn quality related to basic instinct of survival.as an separate, self supportive unity.

As long as you are not able to be aware of the feelings, thoughts of animals, plants and your fellow human beings, as you own, you are separate.

If it can be otherwise I do not know ... I am neither scientist nor mystic and most if not all whatever I deem to know, is hearsay. If I was not taught the word and the concept of God, I would never have known about it. But I do know about hunger and thirst and how to deal with it.

[Tim Rimmer]

‘In fact, according to our standards of intelligence, every other species on Earth is limited in some regard in the way it understands the world around it.
Why should we be any different? "We are the paramecia," says Wolpert. "What is beyond us?”’

Interesting article. Gets one thinking about other species and their ‘intelligence’ - I guess we can only measure/experiment/categorise through our own intelligence and language in order to try to understand them.
Not sure if you’ve read or mentioned it Brian (the book that is), but I’ve been re-reading Merlin Sheldrake’s ‘Entangled Life’. On the cover it states ‘How Fungi Make Our Worlds, Change Our Minds, And Shape Our Futures’. Imo, the book is a real eye-opener particularly for those who believe humans are ‘the top of creation’ or those who anthropomorphise everything.
In the last chapter Sheldrake discusses how yeasts facilitated the transition from hunter-gatherer to agriculturalists (bread/beer). A little later he adds the point made by anthropologist Levi-Strauss, that Macrotermes termites and leafcutter ants made the transition from nature to culture tens of millions of years before humans. (P. 226).
Maybe we are pretty slow on the uptake and there is a great deal beyond us.
Reckon it's time to go listen to my recently acquired mint 'The Cars Greatest Hits' LP.
Someone called M just made my day! Go'pinda' jaya jaya :-)

[777]

after all these years and attempts, . .

Is it SO difficult to 'see' what you are ?
The All pervading Eternal Purusha, . .
in temporary voluntary total amnesia!

777

[777]

'knowledge' goes per ego
You can trade that tiny share
The wealth to acquire is Love
( ego reacting : "Whatever That is " )

777

[777]

A.R.wrote:
making use of AI and suchlike that might jump over the reasoning part and present us directly with the solutions to whatever we are working on (and that is beyond our cognitive capability)

I wish the number of QUBITS adding to an article
will become mandatory - Mostly it's between one and zero

with 256 they could be told some Fusion projects in an hour

77

[Roger]

Worrying happens in this experience we refer to as mind.

The concept of God is also an experience of mind.

So, it seems sensible that if we have faith in a figment of our imagination (mind) and we surrender to it, it will solve all our worries that are in the mind where God is.

And to a certain extent that is what happens.

Faith in God does provide an amazing comfort blanket against existential angst that is driven by an unaware fear of non-existence.

We notice that this God lets us down time and time again when things go wrong.

We struggle to simply and write it off as ‘God works in mysterious ways’ and such becomes an addiction, because we don’t have an alternative solution.

But in actuality you do.

It’s called taking responsibility for the quality of your own mind state which is dependent on what you think, say and do.

It is only when you let go of all figments of the imagination that then the mind is liberated from its conditioned confusion that results in Peace of Mind.

In addition, it’s helpful to be aware in this respect, that what you believe to be you, is a figment of the imagination.

[Dungeness]

@ Brian Ji [ Wolpert thinks there are ways we could potentially get at higher systems of thought that go beyond logic as we know it. Perhaps it will be a super Turing machine that can transcend the normal rules of computing or an intelligent form of extraterrestrial life that shares its wisdom with us. ]

I think  the instructive phrase is "higher systems of thought". We can't conceive [ There, I'm
falling victim to it at least linguistically again ] of knowledge that isn't tethered to language
and imagery and thought. So we crank up the old mental 3-D printer to bail us out with a
super Turing machine or a gravelly voiced ET spouting wisdom, or not to be left out, a
serene robed teacher/guru who tells us tales shrouded in fairy dust. A nano second later
or even before the 3-D printer spits out a deus ex machina, we're distracted with another
thought or two or even a dozen rendering us incapable of comprehending the conceptual
"golden" wisdom.

Which is why mystics suggest the roadblock is not a failure to imagine nor complexity
of subject matter nor a paucity of language terms but us... our distractability, arrogance,
impulsiveness, tenacity of cherished illusions, and, most of all, an inability to be still and
be mindful of the immediacy of the mental debris and other blockage found internally.
The path to greater wisdom starts there.

[Roger]

Worrying happens in this experience we refer to as mind.

The concept of God is also an experience of mind.

So, it seems sensible that if we have faith in a figment of our imagination (mind) and we surrender to it, it will solve all our worries that are in the mind where God is.

And to a certain extent that is what happens.

Faith in God does provide an amazing comfort blanket against existential angst that is driven by an unaware fear of non-existence.

We notice that this God lets us down time and time again when things go wrong.

We struggle to simply and write it off as ‘God works in mysterious ways’ and such becomes an addiction, because we don’t have an alternative solution.

But in actuality you do.

It’s called taking responsibility for the quality of your own mind state which is dependent on what you think, say and do.

It is only when you let go of all figments of the imagination that then the mind is liberated from its conditioned confusion that results in Peace of Mind.

In addition, it’s helpful to be aware in this respect, that what you believe to be you, is a figment of the imagination.