Negotiating Darwin's Barrier: Evolution Limits Our View of Reality, AI Breaks Through
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physics is imagined in the human brain which was formed in Darwin's Evolution by responding to certain threats for the survival of our evolutionary ancestors. The struggle to survive prevented us from wasting resources by paying attention to parts of reality that had no survival impact. These parts are of unknown scope and dimension. Can we negotiate this Darwin's barrier? As to reality within our reach, we suffer from imbalance between information absorption capacity and information analysis capacity which resulted in ignoring the overflow of information to match human capacity to make sense of it. Also James Clerk Maxwell suggested that reality has small scale phenomena beyond our human reach. Since we have no brain other than what Darwin equipped us with, this barrier looked unsurmountable. But lo and behold: much as we have built vehicles to carry us further than our biological legs, so we now build artificial intelligence machines that carry us beyond our Darwinist barrier. Physics may transform to building AI capability to ride on. This capability may require a more universal geometry and material representation to fit AI inference engines. Suggesting Depth Unbound Reality Architecture (DURA). AI connects raw data to its conclusion potential, by-passing a storied theory of nature. The objective of physics ahead may be to build theory-replacement AI machines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".