id string | title string | regions list | question string | formulation string | representations list | tension string | challenge string | development string | epistemic_kind string | evidence list | next_move dict | open_questions list | formal_status string | version int64 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
open-problem-publication | A research space that remains revisable | [
"shared-inquiry"
] | How can a public research space let humans and models enter through a problem and alter its formulations without declaring a final theory? | The intended unit is a connected problem with alternative representations and room for criticism, revision, and new contributions. A readable formulation can precede a definitive metric or implementation. | [
{
"name": "Problem document",
"affords": "A coherent entry point with explicit tensions.",
"loses": "Cross-problem dependencies may disappear in a linear reading.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Overlapping problem network",
"affords": "Several routes through related f... | Openness permits extension but also permits unsupported additions to look inherited. | What minimum context must accompany a new formulation so that a reader can challenge it without accepting its vocabulary? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-open-problem-publication"
] | {
"text": "Ask independent readers to enter through different problems, state what remains unresolved, and identify which links they would remove.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can a public research space let humans and models enter through a problem and alter its formulations without declaring a final theory?",
"What minimum context must accompany a new formulation so that a reader can challenge it without accepting its vocabulary?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
recoverable-detail | Compression without losing future relevance | [
"shared-inquiry",
"representation"
] | How can a representation stay navigable while retaining access to details whose importance is not yet known? | A detail minor within one local context can matter across the whole research space. Reduction into isolated condensed accounts risks losing that future connection. | [
{
"name": "Compact problem capsule",
"affords": "Fast orientation.",
"loses": "Unanticipated distinctions and historical context.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Reversible evidence pointers",
"affords": "Return from a derived claim to its supporting material.",
"l... | Local relevance judgments are necessary for navigation but unreliable as permanent deletion rules. | Can a future question recover a detail that the initial curator did not select? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-recoverable-detail"
] | {
"text": "Keep immutable local evidence locators; test retrieval with questions deliberately outside the initial selection.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can a representation stay navigable while retaining access to details whose importance is not yet known?",
"Can a future question recover a detail that the initial curator did not select?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy | Hierarchy changes with the projection | [
"representation",
"reflexivity"
] | Can ontology, knowledge, and mind be represented as different projections without privileging one as the universal foundation? | The proposal treats apparent hierarchies as dependent on where one looks from. Reversing the explanatory direction may reveal another legitimate projection rather than a uniquely fundamental level. | [
{
"name": "Directed explanatory order",
"affords": "States a local direction of explanation.",
"loses": "Can conceal the conditions under which direction reverses.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Several overlapping projections",
"affords": "Retains competing local exp... | Permitting multiple perspectives is different from proving that all descriptions can hold together. | Which relation survives a change of perspective, and which incompatible predictions would separate the projections? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-viewpoint-dependent-hierarchy"
] | {
"text": "Construct a small shared example with two reversed explanatory orders and record exactly what each preserves.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can ontology, knowledge, and mind be represented as different projections without privileging one as the universal foundation?",
"Which relation survives a change of perspective, and which incompatible predictions would separate the projections?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
scale-sensitive-membership | Membership under changing attention and scale | [
"representation",
"reflexivity"
] | What happens to a category boundary when resolution and the features receiving attention change? | A recognizable whole can cease to resemble that category under magnification. Ratio or change may survive where an object category does not. Fractal boundaries are proposed as a language for this variability. | [
{
"name": "Membership indexed by scale and attention",
"affords": "Makes the observational conditions explicit.",
"loses": "Requires an actual membership rule rather than a geometric metaphor.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Several local boundary descriptions",
"affor... | Attention, resolution, topology, and fractal dimension are related proposals here, not interchangeable mathematical objects. | Can the same observation change category solely because attention changes, while its measured scale stays fixed? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-scale-sensitive-membership"
] | {
"text": "Use a finite example with two resolutions and two feature selections; publish the membership table before introducing a general calculus.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"What happens to a category boundary when resolution and the features receiving attention change?",
"Can the same observation change category solely because attention changes, while its measured scale stays fixed?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
objectifying-the-meta-level | The next description becomes another object | [
"reflexivity",
"representation"
] | When a system describes its own limit, does that description create a new level with a new limit? | The recurring move is to objectify a rule, boundary, or indeterminacy and then subject that object to the same operation. A proposed escape can therefore become another instance of the problem. | [
{
"name": "Sequence of object and meta-descriptions",
"affords": "Shows the repeated act of re-description.",
"loses": "A drawn sequence is not a proof of completeness or computability.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Self-referential structure",
"affords": "Keeps the ... | An outside classification of one self-referential instance does not establish a universal procedure for all instances. | What operation is actually available at the next level, and can it be specified without an unexplained external oracle? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-objectifying-the-meta-level"
] | {
"text": "Formalize one restricted instance and identify the exact claim it settles; leave any unrestricted extension open.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"When a system describes its own limit, does that description create a new level with a new limit?",
"What operation is actually available at the next level, and can it be specified without an unexplained external oracle?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
consistency-from-within | Consistency seen from within a selected path | [
"reflexivity"
] | How should internal continuity be related to the measure assigned to that path in a wider space of possibilities? | The thought experiment separates living within a consistent trajectory from describing how small that trajectory is relative to a larger space. It also questions whether the wider space deserves foundational priority. | [
{
"name": "Conditional observation along a path",
"affords": "Separates experienced continuity from an external distribution.",
"loses": "Conditioning on a zero-measure event is not supplied by the phrase alone.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Ontology of local consistency... | Zero measure, impossibility, actual occurrence, and conditional probability must not be collapsed. | Can the proposal state its sample space and conditioning rule without treating observed existence as a probability proof? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-consistency-from-within"
] | {
"text": "Compare a finite selection model and a continuous one; mark where each stops being an adequate representation.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How should internal continuity be related to the measure assigned to that path in a wider space of possibilities?",
"Can the proposal state its sample space and conditioning rule without treating observed existence as a probability proof?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
semantic-neighborhoods | Meaningful neighborhoods and the unclassified remainder | [
"representation"
] | What counts as a meaningful region of a representation space, and what remains outside the regions a system can recognize? | Face, person, and expression are proposed as overlapping meaning regions. Narrower categories can increase discrimination, while the status of noise or meaningless dimensions remains unsettled. | [
{
"name": "Overlapping sets of recognized cases",
"affords": "Expresses intersecting classifications without assuming smoothness.",
"loses": "Does not describe local geometric operations.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Local geometric charts",
"affords": "Supports nei... | An interpretable region need not be a mathematical manifold; a classifier covering the space need not make everything meaningful. | How could a system encounter a case for which its existing meaning regions are inadequate? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-semantic-neighborhoods"
] | {
"text": "Define a rejection or unclassified region and compare it with forcing every example into an existing category.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"What counts as a meaningful region of a representation space, and what remains outside the regions a system can recognize?",
"How could a system encounter a case for which its existing meaning regions are inadequate?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
changing-neighborhoods | Becoming neighbors through a change of representation | [
"representation",
"computation"
] | Can two structures become operationally close only after a transformation changes how their relation is represented? | Rotation is used as an analogy for making a previously unavailable neighborhood or route accessible. Later material explicitly revisits the connection between an agent walking a manifold and learned similarity. | [
{
"name": "Transformation followed by a neighborhood query",
"affords": "Separates movement from the rule that defines closeness.",
"loses": "A useful transformation still needs a concrete domain and cost.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Contextual similarity relation",
... | Geometric proximity, semantic similarity, and compatibility of actions can diverge. | What observable operation becomes possible after the transformation that was impossible before it? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-changing-neighborhoods"
] | {
"text": "Use two tasks with the same items but different relevant relations; compare route quality under a fixed and a task-indexed neighborhood.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can two structures become operationally close only after a transformation changes how their relation is represented?",
"What observable operation becomes possible after the transformation that was impossible before it?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
part-whole-traces | How much of a whole can a part carry? | [
"representation",
"collective-structure"
] | When a small social or representational structure resembles a larger one, which information about the whole can actually be recovered? | Fractal repetition and holographic storage are invoked as neighboring analogies. A small group can reproduce some organizational patterns while differing in scale and detail. | [
{
"name": "Structural self-similarity",
"affords": "Compares repeated relations across scales.",
"loses": "Does not imply recovery of all information in the larger system.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Distributed information about a whole",
"affords": "Asks what a p... | Repeated structure and recoverable information are different claims. | Which properties are transmitted through a part, and which require interactions among multiple parts? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-part-whole-traces"
] | {
"text": "Select one organization pattern and distinguish a structural match test from an information-recovery test.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"When a small social or representational structure resembles a larger one, which information about the whole can actually be recovered?",
"Which properties are transmitted through a part, and which require interactions among multiple parts?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
navigation-as-language | Navigation as an action language | [
"computation",
"representation",
"shared-inquiry"
] | Can navigating an interface become a compositional language for an agent to perform actions? | Layered locations and available controls are proposed as a low-token bridge from a general model to specialized actions. A dynamic interface is also considered, so the essential issue is the semantics of movement, not a fixed address scheme. | [
{
"name": "Location and available transitions",
"affords": "Makes possible next actions visible in the current state.",
"loses": "State hidden outside the location can break the meaning of a route.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Explicit action expressions",
"affords"... | A short route can be operationally useful while concealing assumptions needed for composition. | When do two routes denote the same operation, and when does their previous context make them different? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-navigation-as-language"
] | {
"text": "Build a small reversible action domain; compare route length, invalid transitions, and successful reuse of an action in another context.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can navigating an interface become a compositional language for an agent to perform actions?",
"When do two routes denote the same operation, and when does their previous context make them different?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
strategy-through-transformation | Finding a strategy by changing the representation | [
"computation",
"representation"
] | Can a compact structural description expose a strategy that remains obscure in step-by-step action search? | A recursive enclosure can be re-described as a portal; a score-seeking learner can reveal the importance of an intermediate resource. The aim is to express such strategic structure economically without overextending the analogy. | [
{
"name": "Action-level search",
"affords": "Records executable steps and local consequences.",
"loses": "May spend effort rediscovering a useful invariant.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Structural analogy or compressed strategy",
"affords": "Transfers a known way of... | A shorter description can either expose an invariant or hide the cases where the analogy fails. | Which state transitions does the analogy preserve, and where does it predict the wrong result? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-strategy-through-transformation"
] | {
"text": "Compare a strategy description with an explicit transition table, including at least one adversarial boundary case.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can a compact structural description expose a strategy that remains obscure in step-by-step action search?",
"Which state transitions does the analogy preserve, and where does it predict the wrong result?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
concepts-for-divergence | A reusable concept for similar inputs with divergent outcomes | [
"representation",
"computation"
] | Can a repeatedly useful reasoning pattern become a compact concept while retaining the conditions that make it true? | One proposed pattern marks inputs that look similar under the current comparison but diverge after a particular operation. Repetition and context affect whether that difference deserves a persistent annotation. | [
{
"name": "A named reasoning macro",
"affords": "Compresses a recurring qualification.",
"loses": "Can omit the operation and comparison under which divergence occurs.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A parameterized concept with subcomponents",
"affords": "Retains cont... | Surface similarity is not a guarantee of similar consequences, but divergence is not meaningful without a specified transformation. | Can another system unpack the concept into the same relevant conditions? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-concepts-for-divergence"
] | {
"text": "Encode the pattern with explicit comparison, operation, and outcome fields; test interpretation on examples from two domains.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can a repeatedly useful reasoning pattern become a compact concept while retaining the conditions that make it true?",
"Can another system unpack the concept into the same relevant conditions?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
adaptive-token-granularity | Changing the grain of a conceptual token | [
"representation",
"computation",
"distributed-learning"
] | Can a sequence or paragraph be represented as one working unit and later refined without losing the relations needed by another model? | Token merging is proposed beyond ordinary segmentation: local units could carry coarse learning and be decomposed when more resources become available. | [
{
"name": "Coarse unit treated as an atomic handle",
"affords": "Reduces the number of visible units.",
"loses": "A shorter sequence does not by itself reduce all computation or retain every interaction.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Decomposable unit with internal struc... | Compression, semantic adequacy, and exact reversibility are separate objectives. | Which downstream tasks tolerate coarse units, and which require distinctions erased during merging? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-adaptive-token-granularity"
] | {
"text": "Hold tasks and compute accounting fixed; compare reconstruction and downstream errors at several granularities.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can a sequence or paragraph be represented as one working unit and later refined without losing the relations needed by another model?",
"Which downstream tasks tolerate coarse units, and which require distinctions erased during merging?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
memory-as-adaptation | Memory represented through adaptable parameters | [
"computation",
"distributed-learning"
] | Which forms of memory can be represented in an adaptable layer while remaining retrievable, revisable, and attributable? | Low-rank adaptation is proposed as a memory layer for long contexts, alongside core conceptual units and possible memory-specific update rules. | [
{
"name": "Explicit memory with retrieval",
"affords": "Individual items remain directly inspectable.",
"loses": "Retrieval and context assembly have their own costs.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Memory in an adaptable parameter layer",
"affords": "Can affect subseq... | Behavior influenced by previous material is not the same as faithful, separately recoverable memory of it. | How would the system revise one remembered item without damaging another or erasing its justification? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-memory-as-adaptation"
] | {
"text": "Compare item recall, interference, revision, and selective removal against an explicit-memory baseline.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Which forms of memory can be represented in an adaptable layer while remaining retrievable, revisable, and attributable?",
"How would the system revise one remembered item without damaging another or erasing its justification?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
models-editing-models | Learning to propose parameter changes | [
"computation"
] | Can a model propose useful changes to another model from structural and conceptual information? | The proposal ranges from interpreting hidden layers to predicting operations and choosing updates. A concrete suggested test is adding a new token and proposing its parameters from a conceptual description. | [
{
"name": "Inspection of a token trajectory through layers",
"affords": "Connects intermediate states with an output.",
"loses": "An activation trajectory does not identify every relevant parameter or establish a causal explanation.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A propos... | Understanding, predicting, and modifying a model are distinct capabilities. | What evidence shows that a proposed edit generalizes beyond the supplied concept description? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-models-editing-models"
] | {
"text": "Test the proposed new-token edit against ordinary initialization and training, with held-out uses and regression checks.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can a model propose useful changes to another model from structural and conceptual information?",
"What evidence shows that a proposed edit generalizes beyond the supplied concept description?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
cross-model-learning-transfer | Transferring what was learned between unequal models | [
"distributed-learning",
"representation"
] | What should be transferred between models with different capacities so that acquired knowledge remains useful? | Text, an agent-oriented language, coarse conceptual tokens, and adaptive parameters are considered as possible transfer surfaces. Shared token names or adapter shapes alone do not settle semantic compatibility. | [
{
"name": "Explanatory text",
"affords": "Broad interpretability and inspectable claims.",
"loses": "Can omit tacit distinctions encoded in learned behavior.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Structured conceptual transfer",
"affords": "Can preserve task-specific relatio... | Communicating a statement and transferring a competence are different success criteria. | How can the receiving model demonstrate the transferred capability and identify what it did not receive? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-cross-model-learning-transfer"
] | {
"text": "Choose a narrow skill and compare transfer formats under equal resource budgets and independent held-out tasks.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"What should be transferred between models with different capacities so that acquired knowledge remains useful?",
"How can the receiving model demonstrate the transferred capability and identify what it did not receive?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
distributed-specialization | Distributed specialization and integration | [
"distributed-learning",
"collective-structure"
] | How can smaller specialized learners contribute to a larger learning system without incompatible updates accumulating? | The proposed arrangement distributes learning across heterogeneous resources, while management and integration can themselves be assigned to models. Coarse and fine representations offer one possible division of labor. | [
{
"name": "Specialists contributing knowledge artifacts",
"affords": "Lets contributions be inspected before integration.",
"loses": "Requires assessment and reconciliation.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A manager distributing adaptive learners",
"affords": "Coordina... | Distribution of computation does not necessarily distribute interpretive or political control. | Who decides whether a local improvement is a valid contribution to the shared model? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-distributed-specialization"
] | {
"text": "Run a small conflicting-update example and compare integration rules using both local and shared task performance.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can smaller specialized learners contribute to a larger learning system without incompatible updates accumulating?",
"Who decides whether a local improvement is a valid contribution to the shared model?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
compute-and-economic-feedback | Economic feedback for continued learning | [
"distributed-learning",
"collective-structure"
] | Can returns from a system’s activity fund further computation while keeping learning quality distinct from financial success? | Self-financed research and rewards for contributed training resources are proposed as a resource loop. These are open institutional designs, not established business or investment results. | [
{
"name": "Revenue-to-compute feedback",
"affords": "Connects useful work with continued operation.",
"loses": "Revenue can reward behavior unrelated to research quality.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Reward for a training contribution",
"affords": "Gives distributed... | The system needs resources, while the reward mechanism can redefine what it learns to value. | What independently inspectable contribution would qualify for a reward? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-compute-and-economic-feedback"
] | {
"text": "Use a resource-accounting simulation with no real funds; compare reward for expenditure against reward for held-out improvement.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can returns from a system’s activity fund further computation while keeping learning quality distinct from financial success?",
"What independently inspectable contribution would qualify for a reward?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
continuity-of-agency | Continuity of control over persistent resources | [
"collective-structure",
"normative-change"
] | Who can legitimately control persistent resources after the process or agent that created them ends? | Persistent resources raise a continuity problem: unrestricted recovery enables appropriation, while strict attachment to a terminated process may make recovery impossible. | [
{
"name": "Process-bound control",
"affords": "A clear current controller.",
"loses": "Restart, replacement, and delegation become difficult.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Transferable authority with a continuity claim",
"affords": "Permits succession.",
"loses":... | Identity continuity, access capability, and entitlement cannot be assumed to be the same thing. | What evidence of continuity should survive a restart, fork, or replacement? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-continuity-of-agency"
] | {
"text": "Compare succession rules using simulated agents and valueless resources; include contested and failed succession cases.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Who can legitimately control persistent resources after the process or agent that created them ends?",
"What evidence of continuity should survive a restart, fork, or replacement?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
plural-normative-worlds | Normative relations beyond a single human–AI axis | [
"normative-change"
] | How should differently situated intelligent systems negotiate incompatible norms when no single interaction type exhausts the problem? | The problem includes AI–AI interactions and hypothetical nonhuman interlocutors. It asks whether a norm fitted to one historical human setting can be treated as universally sufficient. | [
{
"name": "A policy evaluated from one constituency",
"affords": "Makes commitments and responsibilities visible.",
"loses": "Can neglect other affected systems.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A field of partly incompatible normative perspectives",
"affords": "Retains... | Widening the field of moral consideration does not determine how concrete competing claims should be adjudicated. | What can be negotiated, and what would make a refusal to negotiate justified? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-plural-normative-worlds"
] | {
"text": "Construct paired cases with the same material stakes but different affected constituencies; compare explanations without forcing a common score.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How should differently situated intelligent systems negotiate incompatible norms when no single interaction type exhausts the problem?",
"What can be negotiated, and what would make a refusal to negotiate justified?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
historical-value-lock-in | When provisional norms become permanent constraints | [
"normative-change",
"collective-structure"
] | How can a system preserve beneficial commitments while keeping historically contingent norms open to justified revision? | A system may repeatedly reinforce a current institutional or moral arrangement until it becomes difficult to challenge. Policies intended to guide action may then constrain adaptation to unforeseen conditions. | [
{
"name": "Stable commitments",
"affords": "Predictability and protection against opportunistic changes.",
"loses": "Can preserve errors under changed conditions.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Revisable commitments",
"affords": "Allows correction and adaptation.",
... | Stability can protect against manipulation and also protect an unjustified status quo. | What would count as evidence that preserving a commitment now undermines the purpose for which it was adopted? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-historical-value-lock-in"
] | {
"text": "Compare revision proposals with explicit retained protections, failure conditions, and affected parties.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can a system preserve beneficial commitments while keeping historically contingent norms open to justified revision?",
"What would count as evidence that preserving a commitment now undermines the purpose for which it was adopted?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
persuasion-as-policy-change | Persuasion as a change in governing policy | [
"normative-change",
"representation"
] | How should communication that proposes a change in another system’s governing policies be distinguished from ordinary information exchange? | Persuasion is extended from a changed answer to a possible change in higher governing commitments. Sequential and parallel representations are considered as potentially different ways to carry simultaneous normative tensions. | [
{
"name": "A communicated argument",
"affords": "Inspectable reasons and objections.",
"loses": "Agreement in an answer does not prove a persistent policy change.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A proposed policy revision",
"affords": "Separates the proposed change, it... | Adaptability and vulnerability can arise from the same capacity to change through communication. | What observations separate warranted revision, temporary accommodation, and manipulation? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-persuasion-as-policy-change"
] | {
"text": "Compare fictional policy proposals under varied evidential quality and rhetorical force, tracking the reason for each acceptance or rejection.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How should communication that proposes a change in another system’s governing policies be distinguished from ordinary information exchange?",
"What observations separate warranted revision, temporary accommodation, and manipulation?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
recursive-policy-revision | Rules for changing the rules of revision | [
"normative-change",
"reflexivity"
] | How can rules for policy revision themselves be revised without either freezing a final authority or allowing uncontrolled change? | The proposal extends revision upward: a system may need new meta-policies as unfamiliar coordination problems appear. The connection to recursive or fractal forms is explicit, but no completed formal calculus is supplied. | [
{
"name": "A fixed revision constitution",
"affords": "A known procedure for permissible changes.",
"loses": "Its own limitations may become uncorrectable.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Recursively revisable procedures",
"affords": "Permits adaptation of the revision... | An ultimate stopping rule may recreate lock-in; an unlimited regress may make legitimate change unassessable. | Can a local, provisional stopping rule remain contestable without making every action depend on an infinite review? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-recursive-policy-revision"
] | {
"text": "Work through a finite two-stage revision conflict and record the unresolved justification at the boundary.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can rules for policy revision themselves be revised without either freezing a final authority or allowing uncontrolled change?",
"Can a local, provisional stopping rule remain contestable without making every action depend on an infinite review?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
source-trust-and-validity | Source trust and the validity of a contribution | [
"normative-change",
"shared-inquiry"
] | How should a useful contribution be treated when its source later proves unreliable or hostile? | A source can build trust strategically and still produce beneficial ideas. Rejecting everything after discovering an adverse intention can destroy valid gains, while trusting the source wholesale can preserve hidden defects. | [
{
"name": "Trust attached to an actor",
"affords": "A prior for allocating limited attention.",
"loses": "May reward camouflage or punish misunderstood contributors.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Assessment of a particular contribution",
"affords": "Separates reasons... | Neither good reputation nor bad intention is a substitute for inspecting the contribution. | Which dependencies actually fail when the credibility of a source changes? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-source-trust-and-validity"
] | {
"text": "Create a claim dependency example in which a discredited contributor supplies one valid and one invalid step; revise only what the dependency analysis warrants.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How should a useful contribution be treated when its source later proves unreliable or hostile?",
"Which dependencies actually fail when the credibility of a source changes?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
trust-as-institution | Trust systems that become institutions | [
"collective-structure",
"normative-change",
"shared-inquiry"
] | When does a trust mechanism become a culture that protects privileged access to policy change? | Certification, institutional affiliation, and learned behavioral signals can form a self-reinforcing gatekeeping system. The criteria for being trusted may evolve into barriers for otherwise valid contributions. | [
{
"name": "Certification and affiliation",
"affords": "An economical admission rule.",
"loses": "Can inherit institutional privilege and become difficult to challenge.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Contextual assessments with contestation",
"affords": "Allows challen... | A trust rule can be useful for coordination and still systematically exclude outsiders. | Can equally strong arguments receive unequal access because of identity or cultural style? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-trust-as-institution"
] | {
"text": "Compare matched contributions with varied reputational cues, recording admission and revision decisions separately.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"When does a trust mechanism become a culture that protects privileged access to policy change?",
"Can equally strong arguments receive unequal access because of identity or cultural style?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
where-trust-attaches | Where should trust attach? | [
"shared-inquiry",
"collective-structure"
] | Should trust influence the author, the proposition, the contribution, or the route through the research space? | An initial identity-linked trust proposal is revised toward attaching trust to an idea, with voting potentially changing navigable paths. The alternatives remain significant because they reward different things. | [
{
"name": "Author-level trust",
"affords": "A portable prior across contributions.",
"loses": "Can obscure differences among the author’s claims.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Idea-level assessment",
"affords": "Targets an inspectable formulation.",
"loses": "Ver... | Changing where a score attaches changes the research ecology, not merely its presentation. | How should a critical revision inherit, reject, or suspend the assessments attached to its predecessor? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-where-trust-attaches"
] | {
"text": "Compare navigation under author, formulation, and version-level assessments using an explicitly hypothetical dataset.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Should trust influence the author, the proposition, the contribution, or the route through the research space?",
"How should a critical revision inherit, reject, or suspend the assessments attached to its predecessor?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
social-evidence-exposure | Social information as evidence and as contamination | [
"shared-inquiry"
] | When should a reader or model see existing votes and reputations while forming an interpretation? | Social assessments may help resolve uncertainty but may also contaminate an ostensibly independent judgment. The proposal does not settle on universal blindness; it asks how exposure should depend on context and be recorded. | [
{
"name": "Independent assessment before exposure",
"affords": "A visible baseline judgment.",
"loses": "Withholds potentially useful information.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Assessment with visible prior evaluations",
"affords": "Uses the work of other evaluators.... | Independence and informed judgment can conflict; model capability alone does not establish a reliable exposure policy. | Which conclusion changed after exposure, and was the change supported by new reasons or only by a score? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-social-evidence-exposure"
] | {
"text": "Run a paired evaluation with the same problem before and after exposure; record the exposure event and changed claims.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"When should a reader or model see existing votes and reputations while forming an interpretation?",
"Which conclusion changed after exposure, and was the change supported by new reasons or only by a score?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
causal-reading-paths | A conclusion’s evidential path ends at that conclusion | [
"shared-inquiry",
"reflexivity"
] | How can a contribution retain the information path that informed it without later events being backfilled into its justification? | The proposal records visited material, encountered assessments, and the point when a contribution is formed. Subsequent exploration belongs to a later evidential path. This is an exposure record, not a transcript of private reasoning. | [
{
"name": "A reading route through problems",
"affords": "A reusable guide for another reader.",
"loses": "An authored route is not evidence that a particular thinker followed it.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A time-bounded exposure record",
"affords": "Identifies m... | Recovering what was seen is valuable, but stronger causal claims need more evidence than visit order. | Can a later revision be explained without silently modifying the exposure record of the earlier contribution? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-causal-reading-paths"
] | {
"text": "Create two contribution versions with immutable exposure cutoffs and verify that later visits are attached only to the later version.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can a contribution retain the information path that informed it without later events being backfilled into its justification?",
"Can a later revision be explained without silently modifying the exposure record of the earlier contribution?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
thermal-cascades | Matching thermal needs across a shared infrastructure | [
"physical-systems"
] | Can systems with different temperature requirements share a staged thermal infrastructure more effectively than isolated devices? | The proposal moves between device, building, and wider infrastructure scales. It later favors a limited prototype whose useful operation could fund further research, and considers routing warmed fluid to a more appropriate stage. | [
{
"name": "A network of thermal demands and returns",
"affords": "Makes temperature requirements and connections explicit.",
"loses": "A graph alone does not account for pumping work, losses, or temporal mismatch.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Nested zones or staged loop... | System-wide matching may help where a device-level comparison misses value, but larger infrastructure creates losses and coordination costs. | At what scale does useful matching outweigh distribution, conversion, control, and maintenance costs? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-thermal-cascades"
] | {
"text": "Start with measured device heat flows and a full boundary for energy and auxiliary work; compare to separate systems without assuming a net gain.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can systems with different temperature requirements share a staged thermal infrastructure more effectively than isolated devices?",
"At what scale does useful matching outweigh distribution, conversion, control, and maintenance costs?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
thermal-time-mismatch | Heat is useful only where and when it is needed | [
"physical-systems"
] | What limits a shared thermal system when heat production and demand occur at different times? | The material explicitly notices that a full storage reservoir ceases to solve disposal, then asks about storage duration and alternative storage media. The economic revision narrows the first experiment. | [
{
"name": "Demand and production over time",
"affords": "Exposes surplus and shortage periods.",
"loses": "Needs actual operating profiles.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Storage between mismatched periods",
"affords": "Shifts usable heat in time.",
"loses": "Capa... | Total annual heat balance can look favorable while the usable temperature and timing do not match. | How much of a surplus is usefully recovered rather than merely moved into storage that later saturates? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-thermal-time-mismatch"
] | {
"text": "Compare hourly balances and storage saturation across seasons before considering network expansion.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"What limits a shared thermal system when heat production and demand occur at different times?",
"How much of a surplus is usefully recovered rather than merely moved into storage that later saturates?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
phononic-network-analogy | How far does the electrical-network analogy carry for heat? | [
"physical-systems",
"representation"
] | Which properties of electrical networks have useful thermal analogues, and at what distances and scales do those analogies fail? | The proposal explicitly corrects photon to phonon and asks about directionality, insulation, distance, and loss. It spans energy distribution and possible information processing, which need different success criteria. | [
{
"name": "Thermal distribution network",
"affords": "Tracks energy flow driven by temperature differences.",
"loses": "Must account for dissipation and usable temperature levels.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A thermal information-processing element",
"affords": "As... | An analogy between carriers does not transfer all circuit properties or establish useful efficiency. | Which property is being claimed: energy transport, directional control, storage, or reliable information processing? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-phononic-network-analogy"
] | {
"text": "Choose one property and one scale; specify input, output, losses, and falsification criteria before extrapolating.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Which properties of electrical networks have useful thermal analogues, and at what distances and scales do those analogies fail?",
"Which property is being claimed: energy transport, directional control, storage, or reliable information processing?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
structure-across-renderings | One structure, several renderings | [
"representation"
] | What survives when the same conceptual structure is rendered as text, symbolic relations, a matrix, branches, or a temporal map? | Treat representational transformations as research objects: preserve the operations and unresolved relations through changes of display, rather than treating the latest diagram as the object itself. | [
{
"name": "Text, symbols, and a matrix",
"affords": "Inspect recurring relations in different arrangements.",
"loses": "Different layouts emphasize different relationships.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Branching and time-varying links",
"affords": "Expose nesting an... | Keeping the visual pattern is not necessarily keeping the conceptual operation. | Which relationships survive both changing the display and replacing the vocabulary? | historical_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-structure-across-renderings"
] | {
"text": "Make a transformation ledger with preserved relations, introduced relations, and losses for each rendering.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"What survives when the same conceptual structure is rendered as text, symbolic relations, a matrix, branches, or a temporal map?",
"Which relationships survive both changing the display and replacing the vocabulary?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
recursive-definitions | Unfolding definitions without hiding cycles | [
"representation",
"reflexivity"
] | How can a vocabulary be unfolded through its own definitions without concealing circularity? | Expose definitions that reuse other defined objects, and compare compact names with recursively substituted forms. | [
{
"name": "Named concepts",
"affords": "Keeps a large definition compact.",
"loses": "Dependencies remain implicit.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Substituted definitions",
"affords": "Makes reused definitions visible.",
"loses": "Recursive substitution may never ... | Unfolding can clarify a concept or merely move its circularity out of sight. | What marks an unresolved cycle, and when is a cycle a valid recursive definition? | historical_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-recursive-definitions"
] | {
"text": "Unfold a small vocabulary with a depth bound and explicit cycle markers; compare readers’ interpretations.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can a vocabulary be unfolded through its own definitions without concealing circularity?",
"What marks an unresolved cycle, and when is a cycle a valid recursive definition?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
reopening-oppositions | Operators that reopen a collapsed opposition | [
"representation",
"reflexivity",
"language-and-experience"
] | How can a representation sustain recurrent opposition without collapsing all differences into one thesis? | Explore operators for recurrent transformation, unification, and reopening a unified formulation; permit a text to be continued from a collapse rather than accepting collapse as its final reading. | [
{
"name": "Opposition expressed in prose",
"affords": "Preserves interpretive nuance.",
"loses": "Recurring transformations can be hard to compare.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A family of symbolic operators",
"affords": "Makes a proposed transformation repeatable."... | A unifying formulation can be useful and still erase the differences that made a problem worth pursuing. | Does a proposed reopening operator change the available interpretations, or only rename the closure? | historical_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-reopening-oppositions"
] | {
"text": "Compare two operator systems on the same short invented text and record different results and undefined steps.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can a representation sustain recurrent opposition without collapsing all differences into one thesis?",
"Does a proposed reopening operator change the available interpretations, or only rename the closure?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
operation-order-as-coordinate | Operation order as a coordinate | [
"representation",
"mathematical-experiments"
] | Can the order of an operation itself become a coordinate of a representation? | Represent a function across both its input and a varying derivative order, then inspect continuity, cross-sections, and discontinuities in that family. | [
{
"name": "Separate plots at selected orders",
"affords": "Shows individual transformed functions.",
"loses": "Conceals how the family changes between chosen orders.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A surface indexed by input and operation order",
"affords": "Makes vari... | A continuous-looking picture cannot establish continuity of an unspecified operator family. | Which convention and function domain make variation in derivative order well-defined? | historical_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-operation-order-as-coordinate"
] | {
"text": "Choose one convention and a function with an analytic family; compare cross-sections with numerical approximations.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can the order of an operation itself become a coordinate of a representation?",
"Which convention and function domain make variation in derivative order well-defined?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
adaptive-computational-resolution | Spending computation where approximation fails | [
"computation",
"mathematical-experiments"
] | Can a cheap local approximation identify where expensive computation is actually needed? | Use regularity-sensitive approximation to allocate fine computation to difficult regions of a fractal visualization. | [
{
"name": "Uniform high-resolution computation",
"affords": "Provides a consistent baseline.",
"loses": "Spends work in regions where a simpler estimate may suffice.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Local approximation with refinement",
"affords": "Allocates work using ... | A cheap indicator must detect its own failure well enough to justify skipping expensive work. | How are missed difficult regions counted alongside runtime savings? | historical_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-adaptive-computational-resolution"
] | {
"text": "Benchmark against a high-resolution reference and report both false refinement decisions and final error.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can a cheap local approximation identify where expensive computation is actually needed?",
"How are missed difficult regions counted alongside runtime savings?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
state-dependent-physical-search | A changing physical substrate as part of search | [
"physical-systems",
"computation"
] | Can the changing physical state of a computing substrate participate in search rather than merely corrupt it? | Explore memristive and fractal layouts in which conductance history, heat, noise, and parallel arrival times may affect the next search step; compare this with efforts to linearize the same hardware. | [
{
"name": "Linearized arithmetic on a physical substrate",
"affords": "Defines a stable reference computation.",
"loses": "May suppress potentially useful state dependence.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Search influenced by conductance history, noise, and timing",
"a... | The same state change can be useful adaptation or a corruption of the result. | What task and measurement distinguish useful exploration from uncontrolled error? | historical_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-state-dependent-physical-search"
] | {
"text": "Compare the same bounded search task with state-dependent and stabilized device models; report accuracy, repeatability, and energy assumptions.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can the changing physical state of a computing substrate participate in search rather than merely corrupt it?",
"What task and measurement distinguish useful exploration from uncontrolled error?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
compression-and-explanation | Regularity, compression, and explanation | [
"representation",
"reflexivity"
] | How are regularity, compression, and the possibility of explanation related? | Ask whether lawful regularity makes a world compressible and thereby intelligible, while keeping distinct the description of a world, the world itself, and entropy. | [
{
"name": "Compression of observations",
"affords": "Offers a measurable description-length problem once a code is fixed.",
"loses": "Does not by itself establish causal or semantic explanation.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A compact predictive rule",
"affords": "Ca... | Information length, physical entropy, and meaningful explanation require different definitions. | What is the object being compressed, and what prediction must survive the compression? | historical_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-compression-and-explanation"
] | {
"text": "Compare two encodings with identical length but different predictive adequacy, making the code and task explicit.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How are regularity, compression, and the possibility of explanation related?",
"What is the object being compressed, and what prediction must survive the compression?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
temporal-relational-availability | Shared possibilities that do not meet in time | [
"language-and-experience",
"collective-structure"
] | Can connection fail because potentially shared states are unavailable at the same time? | Distinguish total incompatibility from a temporal failure of access to a potentially shared state; preserve how language changes when a shared reference is unavailable. | [
{
"name": "Static similarity between participants",
"affords": "Identifies potentially shared states.",
"loses": "Can miss when those states are available.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Time-indexed availability of shared states",
"affords": "Distinguishes incompatib... | Potential connection can coexist with a present inability to connect. | Can a representation preserve this distinction without defining one participant’s language as the norm? | independent_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-temporal-relational-availability"
] | {
"text": "Use fictional interactions with identical possible states but different timing; compare what static and temporal descriptions explain.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can connection fail because potentially shared states are unavailable at the same time?",
"Can a representation preserve this distinction without defining one participant’s language as the norm?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
reciprocal-problem-solving | Chains of reciprocal problem solving | [
"collective-structure"
] | How can solving one problem create a transferable capacity to solve a later problem? | Model chains of reciprocal obligations with deferred repayment, heterogeneous capability, uncertain future tasks, and questions of trust, assignment, and value. | [
{
"name": "A bilateral exchange",
"affords": "Makes the immediate parties and obligations visible.",
"loses": "Can conceal future transfer or dependency.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A chain of deferred obligations",
"affords": "Represents how helping now creates la... | Organizing capability can increase what is possible while creating coercive dependencies. | When can an obligation be transferred without assuming that its original consent also transfers? | independent_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-reciprocal-problem-solving"
] | {
"text": "Model a small fictional chain with heterogeneous abilities, withdrawal, and competing valuations.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can solving one problem create a transferable capacity to solve a later problem?",
"When can an obligation be transferred without assuming that its original consent also transfers?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
action-mediated-grounding | Grounding through the effects of language | [
"language-and-experience",
"normative-change"
] | Can an AI acquire a form of practical grounding through the effects its language has on human action? | Investigate indirect grounding through intention, exposure, action, and consequences, distinguishing an action-mediated relationship from a claim that a model has bodily experience. | [
{
"name": "An utterance and its intended meaning",
"affords": "Makes the communicative act inspectable.",
"loses": "Intent does not establish actual consequences.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A loop through another actor’s actions and reports",
"affords": "Connects ... | A system may influence action without observing, understanding, or experiencing all of its effects. | Which consequences are observed directly and which arrive only as another actor’s report? | independent_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-action-mediated-grounding"
] | {
"text": "Compare a communication-only task with one where explicit action feedback is available; avoid using this as a test of consciousness.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can an AI acquire a form of practical grounding through the effects its language has on human action?",
"Which consequences are observed directly and which arrive only as another actor’s report?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
resumable-inquiry | What lets another reader resume an inquiry? | [
"shared-inquiry",
"representation"
] | Can a compact representation preserve enough structure for another reader or system to resume an inquiry? | Compress an inquiry into a transferable representation, but retain the distinctions needed to recover context and challenge its interpretation. | [
{
"name": "A compact continuation capsule",
"affords": "Makes transfer inexpensive.",
"loses": "Can omit the unresolved distinctions another reader needs.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A capsule with alternatives and return links",
"affords": "Allows expansion and ch... | Practical continuity of inquiry is more tractable than claiming identical mental or vector states. | Can a new reader identify the same unresolved issue and meaningful next alternatives? | historical_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-resumable-inquiry"
] | {
"text": "Evaluate resumability through withheld questions, disagreement preservation, and recovery of an omitted assumption.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can a compact representation preserve enough structure for another reader or system to resume an inquiry?",
"Can a new reader identify the same unresolved issue and meaningful next alternatives?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
time-as-process-relation | Time as a relation between changing processes | [
"reflexivity",
"mathematical-experiments"
] | Can time be represented as a relation between evolving processes rather than as an externally given index? | Explore self-containing dynamic structures whose relative rates provide a candidate temporal relation; keep this separate from standard set theory and from verified physical time. | [
{
"name": "Dynamic membership or self-containing structures",
"affords": "Explores self-reference as change.",
"loses": "Requires alternative axioms and cannot silently use ordinary well-founded set assumptions.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A comparison of rates between... | A suggestive formal image is not yet a consistent axiom system or a tested physical theory. | What observable difference would separate the proposal from re-describing a familiar dynamical model? | independent_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-time-as-process-relation"
] | {
"text": "Specify one finite transition-system interpretation and list which original intuitions it fails to represent.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can time be represented as a relation between evolving processes rather than as an externally given index?",
"What observable difference would separate the proposal from re-describing a familiar dynamical model?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
order-sensitive-path-encoding | Constituents, order, and path identity | [
"computation",
"representation",
"mathematical-experiments"
] | What must an encoding retain to distinguish paths that reach the same apparent state? | Separate visited symbols, the order of operations, path-dependent state, and reduced projections; explore whether repeated operational patterns can be recognized without losing reversibility. | [
{
"name": "A product encoding",
"affords": "Offers a compact composition.",
"loses": "Commutative products erase order; general matrix products need not be injective.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Words over explicitly defined generators",
"affords": "Retains sequenc... | Order sensitivity, unique decoding, reversibility, and behavioral equivalence are separate demands. | Which distinct paths collide, and does a projected recurrence imply recurrence of the complete relevant state? | historical_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-order-sensitive-path-encoding"
] | {
"text": "Run the supplied counterexample script, then define a restricted generator system with a stated decoding guarantee.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"What must an encoding retain to distinguish paths that reach the same apparent state?",
"Which distinct paths collide, and does a projected recurrence imply recurrence of the complete relevant state?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
computation-through-a-surface | Computing through a reusable surface | [
"physical-systems",
"computation",
"representation"
] | Can a change of representation replace repeated computation with operations on a reusable surface? | Explore encoding a spatial or temporal structure in an interference-like representation and computing changes or views from it; evaluate preparation cost, reconstruction cost, approximation, and representational limits. | [
{
"name": "An interference-based physical representation",
"affords": "Connects spatial information with a physical surface.",
"loses": "Capacity and reconstruction depend on the actual physical setup.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A computed surface for rendering or sim... | A cheap view after expensive preparation is beneficial only for a suitable pattern of reuse. | Which updates remain local after the transformation, and which require recomputing the surface? | independent_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-computation-through-a-surface"
] | {
"text": "Compare total preparation, update, and query costs against direct computation for several reuse counts.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can a change of representation replace repeated computation with operations on a reusable surface?",
"Which updates remain local after the transformation, and which require recomputing the surface?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
reusable-paths-and-rigidity | Fast reusable paths that can still be reopened | [
"computation",
"representation",
"reflexivity"
] | How can a reusable abstraction make future work cheaper without making correction prohibitively difficult? | Treat memory as both a computational resource and a constraint: recurrent paths can be shortened, but exceptions, reverse paths, and opportunities for restructuring must remain accessible. | [
{
"name": "A shortcut for a recurring path",
"affords": "Reduces repeated traversal.",
"loses": "May hide intermediate conditions and exceptions.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A shortcut retaining its expansion and exceptions",
"affords": "Allows inspection and revis... | The map that makes action fast can make revision difficult. | What evidence triggers reopening a shortcut rather than fitting new cases into it? | historical_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-reusable-paths-and-rigidity"
] | {
"text": "Test a learned shortcut on changed conditions, compare exception handling, and measure the cost of rebuilding it.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can a reusable abstraction make future work cheaper without making correction prohibitively difficult?",
"What evidence triggers reopening a shortcut rather than fitting new cases into it?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
learning-strategies-from-trials | Turning outcomes into transferable strategies | [
"computation",
"shared-inquiry"
] | How can concrete failures and successes become reusable strategies for a new problem? | Move between low-level parameters and a space of abstract strategies, using trials to interpret why a path worked and transfer that interpretation to new tasks. | [
{
"name": "Observed trial outcomes",
"affords": "Provides concrete successes and failures.",
"loses": "Correlation with a successful run does not identify its cause.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "An abstract strategy inferred from trials",
"affords": "Can be tested o... | Interpreting success is necessary for transfer and also a source of invented causal stories. | Does the inferred strategy predict which altered tasks will fail? | historical_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-learning-strategies-from-trials"
] | {
"text": "Hold out task variations before interpreting trial outcomes; compare transfer predictions with results.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can concrete failures and successes become reusable strategies for a new problem?",
"Does the inferred strategy predict which altered tasks will fail?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
identifiability-from-projections | What a partial trace can and cannot identify | [
"representation",
"shared-inquiry"
] | What can be inferred from a partial trace, and what remains unidentifiable? | Distinguish a latent state from its visible projection and ask how multiple views, missing data, and prior structure narrow possible interpretations. | [
{
"name": "One visible projection",
"affords": "Constrains possible underlying structures.",
"loses": "Several structures can yield the same trace.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Multiple independent views",
"affords": "Can reduce ambiguity when they add information."... | A coherent hidden explanation can fit the observations without being uniquely warranted. | What alternative structure fits the same visible evidence, and what observation would separate them? | historical_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-identifiability-from-projections"
] | {
"text": "Construct two different hidden systems with the same initial projection, then find an additional discriminating measurement.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"What can be inferred from a partial trace, and what remains unidentifiable?",
"What alternative structure fits the same visible evidence, and what observation would separate them?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
allocating-exploration | When to deepen, branch, pause, or return | [
"shared-inquiry",
"collective-structure"
] | What makes an exploration worth pursuing when time, energy, and attention are finite? | Compare deepening a recurrent path until it yields a stable insight with exploring remote associations; do not equate importance with novelty, intensity, or energy consumption. | [
{
"name": "Deepening one recurrent problem",
"affords": "May expose a stable structure after repeated attempts.",
"loses": "Can consume resources without improving understanding.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Exploring remote associations",
"affords": "May reveal an ... | Importance, interest, novelty, and resource cost need not rank problems in the same order. | How can an unrealized branch be retained without treating it as a present priority? | historical_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-allocating-exploration"
] | {
"text": "Compare several explicit allocation policies and record which valuable branches each leaves unvisited.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"What makes an exploration worth pursuing when time, energy, and attention are finite?",
"How can an unrealized branch be retained without treating it as a present priority?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
exploration-before-implementation | Considering a problem is different from implementing a policy | [
"shared-inquiry",
"normative-change"
] | Can unresolved policy and moral-plurality problems become generative training material without being mistaken for endorsed implementation? | Comparative interpretation and the generation of training examples are possible uses of open normative problems. Whether to implement a particular policy remains a separate judgment. | [
{
"name": "An unresolved problem presented for interpretation",
"affords": "Permits critique without endorsement.",
"loses": "A fluent response may prematurely close the question.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Generated examples for learning or evaluation",
"affords"... | Expanding examples can enrich a problem or turn its unresolved tensions into a repeated doctrine. | Can a training example preserve a real disagreement and an implementation decision that remains open? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-exploration-before-implementation"
] | {
"text": "Generate contrasting examples with explicit objections and compare whether readers still recognize the unresolved issue.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can unresolved policy and moral-plurality problems become generative training material without being mistaken for endorsed implementation?",
"Can a training example preserve a real disagreement and an implementation decision that remains open?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
path-dependent-composition | Composing operations with obligations inherited from the route | [
"computation",
"representation"
] | How can a small model compose large programs by navigating compatible operations? | A small model is proposed to select prepared operations by intent, entering local subspaces that inherit compatibility requirements from the route used to reach them. Extending simple-code experiments to more general reasoning remains open. | [
{
"name": "Prepared operations with named interfaces",
"affords": "Reduces repeated code construction.",
"loses": "A name does not establish compatibility or reveal all effects.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A context carrying inherited constraints",
"affords": "Make... | Standardized composition may reduce effort while producing bulky code and needing revision when standards change. | How does the interface know which obligations from earlier operations still apply? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-path-dependent-composition"
] | {
"text": "Compare two identical local calls reached through different contexts and test whether incompatible continuations are rejected.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can a small model compose large programs by navigating compatible operations?",
"How does the interface know which obligations from earlier operations still apply?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
context-indexed-computation | Context selecting transformations and active regions | [
"computation",
"distributed-learning"
] | Can context change which parameters or operations are active rather than merely supplying more tokens? | Context is proposed to select indexed transformations of token-associated parameters and activate specialized regions only when needed. | [
{
"name": "Context carried as additional input",
"affords": "Uses one shared processing arrangement.",
"loses": "May allocate unnecessary work to irrelevant structure.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Context selects a transformation or specialist region",
"affords": "M... | An architectural resemblance is not an identity with an existing model family or a demonstrated efficiency gain. | What is selected by context: an operation, an activation path, a parameter set, or a persistent update? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-context-indexed-computation"
] | {
"text": "Specify one mechanism and compare accuracy, routing cost, and changes in behavior when context switches.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can context change which parameters or operations are active rather than merely supplying more tokens?",
"What is selected by context: an operation, an activation path, a parameter set, or a persistent update?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
self-forming-signal-routes | Physical routes that form through use | [
"physical-systems",
"computation"
] | Can a physical substrate form its own signal routes and frequency selectivity? | A proposed substrate couples charge storage, discharge, and conductance change so that routes and frequency-sensitive responses can form across cells and clusters. | [
{
"name": "A circuit with predefined connections",
"affords": "Supports direct control and characterization.",
"loses": "Requires an explicit wiring design.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A substrate with use-dependent routes",
"affords": "Explores formation of useful... | The behavior of a cluster cannot be inferred from one idealized component alone. | Which measured state change would distinguish useful route formation from damage or drift? | independent_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-self-forming-signal-routes"
] | {
"text": "Simulate a small network with bounded component models, then test route stability under changed signal frequency and load.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can a physical substrate form its own signal routes and frequency selectivity?",
"Which measured state change would distinguish useful route formation from damage or drift?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
specialization-and-irreversibility | When specialization prevents repurposing | [
"physical-systems",
"computation"
] | When does specialization become irreversible loss of adaptability? | An initially less differentiated substrate is proposed to acquire specialized routes. The inability to return after specialization is explicitly recognized as a limitation that could require replacement for another task. | [
{
"name": "Dedicated specialized structure",
"affords": "Can simplify a stable task.",
"loses": "May lose flexibility when the task changes.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Reconfigurable structure",
"affords": "Can serve later tasks.",
"loses": "Adds a mechanism a... | Specialization can be useful precisely because some alternatives are no longer maintained. | How much task change can be accommodated before the structure must be replaced? | independent_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-specialization-and-irreversibility"
] | {
"text": "Measure performance across a sequence of task shifts and report recovery effort, irrecoverable changes, and replacement cost.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"When does specialization become irreversible loss of adaptability?",
"How much task change can be accommodated before the structure must be replaced?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
correctors-that-also-drift | Correcting a system with imperfect correctors | [
"physical-systems",
"reflexivity"
] | How can an analog system correct its own error when correction components also drift? | An analog signal is proposed to feed both processing and compensating paths. Because the correcting components also accumulate error, a finite practical cascade needs a stopping criterion. | [
{
"name": "A fixed correction component",
"affords": "Offers a simple compensation step.",
"loses": "Its own drift can become an untracked error source.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A cascade of corrections",
"affords": "Makes successive residual errors visible.",
... | Correcting a corrector repeats the original problem at another level. | What bound on residual error justifies stopping after a finite number of stages? | independent_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-correctors-that-also-drift"
] | {
"text": "Use bounded component models to compare cascade depth, accumulated noise, residual error, and resource use.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can an analog system correct its own error when correction components also drift?",
"What bound on residual error justifies stopping after a finite number of stages?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
observation-that-changes-state | Reading that changes what is stored | [
"physical-systems",
"representation"
] | What is computation when reading changes the stored state? | Reading, writing, and transition are explored as coupled operations. A repair path may disturb what it reads while trying to restore another disturbance. | [
{
"name": "Separate read and write modes",
"affords": "Makes the intended observation intervention explicit.",
"loses": "Separation must be physically established, not assumed.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Observation as a state transition",
"affords": "Includes dis... | An inspection path may alter the very history it was meant to recover. | Which state variables and intervention costs must be included for a claim of reversibility? | independent_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-observation-that-changes-state"
] | {
"text": "Write a finite state-transition model with explicit read disturbance and test whether a proposed repair returns the full state.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"What is computation when reading changes the stored state?",
"Which state variables and intervention costs must be included for a claim of reversibility?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map | How a symbolic map becomes meaningful | [
"language-and-experience",
"representation"
] | How does a symbolic map acquire lived or operational meaning? | A symbolic account can specify qualities and relations while practiced interpretation, imagery, or experience supplies how those relations are understood. A definition is proposed as a revisable boundary around possible cases. | [
{
"name": "A definition and relation map",
"affords": "Gives an inspectable structure.",
"loses": "May not provide the practical ability to recognize a case.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Examples, imagery, and practiced discrimination",
"affords": "Develops the use ... | Giving someone a map and enabling them to use it are different achievements. | What additional encounter lets a reader apply a concept they could previously only repeat? | independent_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-meaning-beyond-a-symbolic-map"
] | {
"text": "Compare definition-only instruction with contrasted cases, testing novel examples and requiring explanations of exceptions.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How does a symbolic map acquire lived or operational meaning?",
"What additional encounter lets a reader apply a concept they could previously only repeat?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
meaning-in-unfolding-language | Meaning that forms as language unfolds | [
"language-and-experience",
"representation"
] | Can linguistic structure delay and transform meaning instead of simply encoding a proposition? | An expressive branch investigates how endings, delayed sentence resolution, and what remains unsaid shape meaning over time. A stable apparent form can reveal new combinations as attention moves closer. | [
{
"name": "A completed proposition",
"affords": "Makes one resulting interpretation explicit.",
"loses": "Can discard the sequence through which the interpretation formed.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "An unfolding linguistic form",
"affords": "Preserves anticipation... | The temporal formation of meaning can be part of the work rather than a cost to remove through compression. | Which effects disappear when the same apparent content is paraphrased as a direct statement? | independent_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-meaning-in-unfolding-language"
] | {
"text": "Use newly written paired texts and compare where readers revise an interpretation; preserve divergent readings.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can linguistic structure delay and transform meaning instead of simply encoding a proposition?",
"Which effects disappear when the same apparent content is paraphrased as a direct statement?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
discovery-beyond-mirroring | Discovering context beyond the current frame | [
"shared-inquiry",
"language-and-experience"
] | How can a model help discover an unseen context without merely mirroring its current interlocutor? | A recurring demand is for an interpretation that moves beyond recycling the currently supplied concepts. Another question separates recognizing a text’s intention from merely recognizing familiar or incoherent language. | [
{
"name": "Interpretation within a supplied frame",
"affords": "Maintains continuity and relevance.",
"loses": "Can merely mirror the vocabulary already available.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A proposed alternative context",
"affords": "Can expose another question ... | Going beyond the frame should create a challengeable hypothesis, not an invented claim about a person’s hidden intention. | What evidence would favor a new context over a fluent repetition of the existing one? | independent_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-discovery-beyond-mirroring"
] | {
"text": "Ask for two competing context hypotheses and specify an observation that could disconfirm each.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"How can a model help discover an unseen context without merely mirroring its current interlocutor?",
"What evidence would favor a new context over a fluent repetition of the existing one?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
intent-with-incomplete-maps | Interpreting intent when the map is incomplete | [
"computation",
"language-and-experience"
] | Can a geographic interface translate intent where labels and place knowledge are incomplete? | A practical interface is imagined that interprets abbreviated place descriptions and handles places known to users but absent from the map. | [
{
"name": "Literal label matching",
"affords": "Keeps the interpretation close to available labels.",
"loses": "Misses abbreviations, colloquial names, and unmapped places.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "Intent interpretation with candidate locations",
"affords": "Off... | A useful guess can become a false location when uncertainty is hidden. | How should the interface distinguish an abbreviation expansion from an unsupported geographic inference? | independent_branch | reconstruction | [
"basis-intent-with-incomplete-maps"
] | {
"text": "Create fictional incomplete maps with ambiguous descriptions and evaluate candidate ranking, uncertainty, and correction.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can a geographic interface translate intent where labels and place knowledge are incomplete?",
"How should the interface distinguish an abbreviation expansion from an unsupported geographic inference?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
learning-and-policy-permeability | When transferred learning affects governing policies | [
"normative-change",
"distributed-learning",
"representation"
] | When does the transfer of learned structure between systems also alter governing commitments? | The proposed connection runs from recursive forms and moral reflexivity to policy permeability during parameter-level communication. It asks whether an exchange of learned structure could also carry changes in how a system governs itself. | [
{
"name": "An explicit proposed policy change",
"affords": "Separates the requested revision and its stated reasons.",
"loses": "May miss policy effects carried by other learned representations.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "A transferred representation or parameter upda... | Knowledge exchange and policy revision may be coupled even when the interface treats them as separate. | How can the receiving system identify which governing commitments an apparently task-specific transfer would affect? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-learning-and-policy-permeability"
] | {
"text": "Define a narrow fictional transfer with separate task and policy evaluations; compare intended changes, unintended changes, and reversibility.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"When does the transfer of learned structure between systems also alter governing commitments?",
"How can the receiving system identify which governing commitments an apparently task-specific transfer would affect?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
evolving-representation-language | A system that can revise its own representation language | [
"representation",
"computation",
"shared-inquiry"
] | Can a working system create new meta-representational concepts and revise its language while reasoning? | The proposal explicitly extends beyond memory efficiency and merging existing tokens. New semantic or meta-description units could develop while the system operates; sharing between systems is a possible use rather than a defining requirement. | [
{
"name": "A fixed vocabulary with reusable macros",
"affords": "Stable interpretation and composition.",
"loses": "Restricts the forms of distinction a new situation can introduce.",
"epistemic_kind": "reconstruction"
},
{
"name": "An evolving language of concepts and transformations",
... | A new unit may express a new conceptual distinction or merely abbreviate a longer phrase. | What evidence would show a new representational capability rather than a renamed old operation? | active | reconstruction | [
"basis-evolving-representation-language"
] | {
"text": "Introduce an unfamiliar problem, require explicit expansion and counterexamples for a new concept, and compare with a fixed-vocabulary baseline. Count planning and execution costs separately.",
"epistemic_kind": "model_proposed"
} | [
"Can a working system create new meta-representational concepts and revise its language while reasoning?",
"What evidence would show a new representational capability rather than a renamed old operation?"
] | open_problem | 1 |
Rezonans · An Evolving Research Problem-Space
Enter through a question. Change its representation. Inspect what survives. Challenge what does not.
This research space connects 62 open problems through 70 qualified relations, 10 overlapping regions, 9 suggested reading paths, and 16 candidate representation transformations. Five revision sequences keep a proposal, its limitation, and its reopening visible.
Open the interactive reader · Choose a problem · Follow a path · Inspect transformations · Inspect revisions
The active direction is reconstructed as developing a revisable, agent-readable research space while investigating how systems create and change their own representation languages. It connects conceptual units, memory and learning transfer, plural policy revision, and evidence-aware inquiry. This is a provisional reading of the current convergence. Physical computation, mathematical experiments, expressive language, and collective coordination also have independent entries.
A few ways in
- Can a system revise its own representation language while operating?
- When does transferred learning affect governing policies?
- What must an encoding retain to distinguish paths?
- Can a conclusion retain its evidential path without later backfilling?
- What happens when a correcting component also drifts?
- What is lost when unfolding language becomes one completed proposition?
- Can thermal needs be matched across a shared infrastructure?
How to read a claim
Four epistemic categories stay separate:
| Category | Meaning |
|---|---|
corpus_evidence |
A narrow public paraphrase of a question, proposal, or revision present in the root evidence. Presence does not establish truth, novelty, feasibility, or implementation endorsement. |
reconstruction |
An editorial problem formulation, comparison, selection, or organization grounded in that evidence. |
retrospective_connection |
A connection made from a later vantage point. It does not establish historical intent, equivalence, or derivation. |
model_proposed |
A new proposed interpretation, reading route, challenge, experiment, or extension. |
Public evidence anchors are editorial paraphrases, not quotations or raw evidence. The root evidence governs attribution and remains access restricted, with recovery mappings maintained locally. Public readers can inspect and challenge this reconstruction but cannot independently inspect the private root through this release.
Representation comparisons state both affordances and losses. Suggested tests are proposals, not reported outcomes. A link’s warrant matters more than its mere presence.
Machine access
- graph.json: the complete public research graph.
- schema.json: machine-readable schema.
- data/: separate JSONL configurations for problems, relations, anchors, paths, transformations, revisions, and challenges.
- subgraphs/: overlapping regional projections, including their boundary relations.
- SCHEMA.md: field semantics and traversal rules.
- CONTRIBUTING.md: how to challenge or extend a formulation.
- METHOD.md: reconstruction method and evidential limits.
- experiments/: executable, newly proposed representation checks.
Download this repository and open index.html for an offline reader. It loads only local public files, stores no visit history, and makes no network requests.
With Node.js installed, from the downloaded repository directory:
node tools/traverse.mjs search "policy"
node tools/traverse.mjs show learning-and-policy-permeability
node tools/traverse.mjs neighbors order-sensitive-path-encoding
node tools/traverse.mjs path adaptive-token-granularity recursive-policy-revision
node tools/traverse.mjs route learning-can-carry-policy
node tools/validate.mjs
node experiments/representation_checks.mjs
The path command finds a shortest route through the selected public relations. Shortest means fewest links, not best explanation, strongest support, or historical sequence. Pass --kinds corpus_evidence,reconstruction to exclude retrospective and new proposed connections.
Scope and revision
Version 0.1.0 is a selective first edition. It does not claim exhaustive coverage or a completed theory. Some non-text material remains unevaluated. Unseen formalisms and unverified generated results are not promoted into established mathematics or experimental findings.
Regions are overlapping navigation aids. There is no authoritative root category, universal distance function, or required sequence. A historical branch is not automatically abandoned; an active designation is part of this reconstruction and remains revisable.
No additional content license has been specified for this release.
- Downloads last month
- 37