We introduce a framework that can be used to model both mathematics and human reasoning about mathematics. This framework involves stochastic mathematical systems (SMSs), which are stochastic processes that generate pairs of questions and associated answers (with no explicit referents). We use the SMS framework to define normative conditions for mathematical reasoning, by defining a “calibration” relation between a pair of SMSs. The first SMS is the human reasoner, and the second is an “oracle” SMS that can be interpreted as (...) deciding whether the question–answer pairs of the reasoner SMS are valid. To ground thinking, we understand the answers to questions given by this oracle to be the answers that would be given by an SMS representing the entire mathematical community in the infinite long run of the process of asking and answering questions. We then introduce a slight extension of SMSs to allow us to model both the physical universe and human reasoning about the physical universe. We then define a slightly different calibration relation appropriate for the case of scientific reasoning. In this case the first SMS represents a human scientist predicting the outcome of future experiments, while the second SMS represents the physical universe in which the scientist is embedded, with the question–answer pairs of that SMS being specifications of the experiments that will occur and the outcome of those experiments, respectively. Next we derive conditions justifying two important patterns of inference in both mathematical and scientific reasoning: (i) the practice of increasing one’s degree of belief in a claim as one observes increasingly many lines of evidence for that claim, and (ii) abduction, the practice of inferring a claim’s probability of being correct from its explanatory power with respect to some other claim that is already taken to hold for independent reasons. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

One key question in the philosophy of artificial intelligence (AI) concerns how we can recognize artificial systems as intelligent. To make the general question more manageable, I focus on a particular type of AI, namely one that can prove mathematical theorems. The current generation of automated theorem provers are not understood to possess intelligence, but in my thought experiment an AI provides humanly interesting proofs of theorems and communicates them in human-like manner as scientific papers. I then ask what the (...) criteria could be for recognizing such an AI as intelligent. I propose an approach in which the relevant criteria are based on the AI’s interaction within the mathematical community. Finally, I ask whether we can deny the intelligence of the AI in such a scenario based on reasons other than its (non-biological) material construction. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

This paper provides a brief overview of findings in mathematical cognition and how a human-like AI in mathematics may look like. Then, it provides six reasons in favor of a human-like AI for mathematics: (1) human cognition, with all its limits, creates mathematics; (2) human mathematics is insightful, not merely deductive steps; (3) human cognition detects structure in the real world; (4) human cognition can tackle and detect complex problems; (5) human cognition is creative; (6) human cognition considers ethical issues. (...) The paper provides a tentative frame to the question whether human mathematical cognition is relevant for designing an artificial intelligence that works on and creates mathematics. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark