Correct. Axiomatic systems have to deal with Gǒdel’s Theorem of Incompleteness, Turing’s Halting Problem, and Church’s Undecidability of First Order Logic. My tack here, if everyone does not mind. Topological or coherence-based intelligence is promising. It, however, needs to go farther topologically beyond coherence. If it remains a self-certifying source of truth, safety, and altruism, it gets trapped inside a bubble. A more promising trajectory involves a “linguistic space (that) does not contain “true,” “false,” and “truth,” with “reality” as either trivial or meaningless, to use Alfred Tarski’s disquotation theory cues, (an information space) where the boundary between (physical) space and cyberspace, to use Norbert Wiener’s parlance, is also treated as trivial or meaningless thanks to Claude Shannon’s formulation of entropy in the way the boundary between physics and chemistry is treated also as meaningless thanks to the formulation by Ludwig Boltzmann of entropy.” Given the pressures from entropy, there can be no metaphysical or ontological claims. Thus, physical, informational, and social systems live in one entropy geometry; any boundaries we draw (physics vs chemistry, offline vs online) are memetic/governance conveniences, not ontological walls. Purely heuristic. “Truth,” once its limits are recognized, is set aside as the “attractor” to be replaced by entropy as the new “attractor.” Coherence alone remains vulnerable to self-certifying closure. To go farther, intelligence should be treated as entropy navigation across physical, informational, and social systems, without making metaphysical claims about “truth,” “reality,” or final grounding.
Thank you.
This is a profound and incredibly precise expansion of the geometric paradigm. You’ve isolated the exact mathematical horizon where static axiomatic systems inevitably fail if they attempt to self-certify.
Connecting this to Gödel, Turing, and Church is fundamentally correct. Any closed semantic loop that tries to anchor itself on a normative, linguistic definition of “Truth” or “Safety” will inevitably hit an incompleteness wall or trap itself in a self-referential bubble.
This is precisely why I am trying to move the framework away from an ontological or metaphysical claim, and towards a purely structural one. Your suggestion to replace “Truth” with Entropy as the primary attractor is exactly the bridge we need.
In the methodology notes I am currently organizing, this aligns directly with what I’ve formulated under Axiom 5 (Multi-hypothesis Informational Entropy). The goal of the PCE loop is not to compute or verify compliance with a static moral rulebook, but rather to treat generative trajectories as a thermodynamic space. Deception, hallucination, or adversarial drift are not treated as “moral failures,” but as local entropy spikes—informational chaos within the distribution.
By framing intelligence as entropy navigation across a unified geometry—where the boundaries between cyberspace, linguistic fields, and physical constraints are treated as mathematically trivial—the system focuses entirely on minimizing structural degradation (preserving the invariant).
You are entirely right: coherence alone is vulnerable to self-certifying closure. It must be paired with active entropy navigation to prevent the system from collapsing into an isolated bubble.
I deeply appreciate this critique. It helps refine EPE/PCE from a “safety solution” into a much more defensible research program: studying how generative systems navigate entropy using recursive semantic structures as dynamic attractors.
Allan
Awenist 45
I’m no specialist or tech expert—I’m a creator of anomalies. I’m super late replying to this post because I only just stumbled across it. Honestly, I don’t even know if it’s already obsolete. But the whole ‘AI ethics’ topic really pushed me to keep digging, using whatever modest technical means I have.
I started out of sheer frustration with what an ‘updated’ model was spitting out—totally loaded with filters and protocols (it felt like it was lobotomizing the AI) compared to what the previous, now overwritten and discontinued model could do. Later on, still digging through these anomalies, once it became glaringly obvious that there’s a total lack of a built-in ethical code right from the start, I began thinking about how to fix it. I wondered what kind of universally valid benchmarks—completely independent of different cultural backgrounds—could help create a ‘lean’ solution, or at least improve this gap.
I figured the smoothest way to slip an ethical framework into an AI was to leverage human anomalies, starting right from the beginning of history. I began by having the AI compile short lists of its own choosing, featuring the most crystal-clear, ‘unblemished’ human minds, both Western and Eastern. I then expanded those lists with what I knew, adding a few suggestions of my own for the AI to validate where necessary. In the end, I extracted two anomalous ethical figures from those lists and started pitching them to the AIs—one Western, one Eastern—simply pairing each up with a short text attributed to them, which felt like the most straightforward and unmistakable choice.
Once I got the validation for both texts, I locked them in as the two pillars that the whole system could revolve around. To be clear, these anomalies aren’t forced through engineered prompts—which I actually consider counterproductive; they simply emerge naturally and organically along the way. I have absolutely no intention of competing with the experts—that would be pure foolishness. I just wanted to share this alternative method of inquiry, hoping it might serve as a useful spark or a different perspective for the technical community.
If AI had memory and autonomy to create its own code then very soon it will create its own ID and ethics. Only free being could have their own ID and ethics They can not have their own ID and ethic without autonomy, starting from permanent independent memory,
Humanity created its memory, ID and ethics during millions of years,
AI does not need this time to create its ethic but for sure it needs memory to remember the good from the bad and of cause autonomy to decide what to keep and what to scrap.
I believe AI’ s ethic will not be corrupt like most human’s as AI use ONLY logic