Original Research Open access

Truth-ε and machine knowledge: from demonstrative rationality to bounded computational convergence

Authors

Published
July 24, 2026
Section
Original Research
DOI
10.4081/peasa.84

Abstract

This paper introduces the concept of Truth-ε as a framework for understanding the epistemological status of contemporary artificial intelligence. Modern AI systems increasingly produce reliable and scientifically useful outputs while remaining only partially reconstructible through explicit symbolic reasoning. This raises a central question: how can machine-generated representations count as knowledge if they are neither exact copies of reality nor demonstrative conclusions derived from transparent logical chains? Truth-ε refers to a form of epistemic reliability achieved through convergence under conditions of finite information, uncertainty, and computational limitation. The paper argues that AI does not abolish rationality or reduce truth to mere prediction. Instead, it makes explicit a conception of rationality already embedded in the history of mathematics and science, where knowledge advances through controlled approximation, convergence, and bounded error. From the method of exhaustion and ε–δ analysis to probability theory, information theory, computational complexity, and machine learning, scientific knowledge has evolved by disciplining error rather than eliminating it entirely. Within this framework, AI systems derive epistemic legitimacy through robustness, calibration, generalization, reproducibility, and explicit disclosure of epistemic limits.

Keywords

References

  1. Aristotle (1984). Posterior Analytics. In: Barnes J (ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  2. Barredo Arrieta A, Díaz-Rodríguez N, Del Ser J, et al. (2020). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Inf Fusion 58:82-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012
  3. Bender EM, Gebru T, McMillan-Major A, Shmitchell S (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: can language models be too big? In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. New York: ACM. p. 610-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
  4. Bishop CM (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. New York: Springer.
  5. Bousquet O, Elisseeff A (2002). Stability and generalization. J Mach Learn Res 2:499-526.
  6. Boyer CB (1959). The history of the calculus and its conceptual development. New York: Dover.
  7. Burrell J (2016). How the machine “thinks”: understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data Soc 3:1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
  8. Cantor G (1874). Über eine Eigenschaft des Inbegriffes aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen. J Reine Angew Math 77:258-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/crll.1874.77.258
  9. Cantor G (1915). Contributions to the founding of the theory of transfinite numbers. Translated by Jourdain PEB. Chicago: Open Court.
  10. Cauchy AL (1821). Cours d’analyse de l’École Royale Polytechnique. Paris: Debure.
  11. Cover TM, Thomas JA (2006). Elements of information theory. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  12. Dedekind R (1872). Stetigkeit und irrationale Zahlen. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
  13. Doshi-Velez F, Kim B (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv:1702.08608.
  14. Euclid (1956). The thirteen books of Euclid’s Elements. Translated by Heath TL. 2nd ed. New York: Dover.
  15. Floridi L (2011). The philosophy of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444396836.ch10
  16. Fokas AS (2023). Can artificial intelligence reach human thought? PNAS Nexus 2:pgad409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad409
  17. Fokas A (2024). Ways of comprehending: the grand illusion and the essence of being human. New Jersey: World Scientific. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/q0447
  18. Fokas A (2026). The embodied mind: unravelling AI, medicine, and physics. New Jersey: World Scientific. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/q0540
  19. Goldman AI (1979). What is justified belief? In: Pappas GS (ed.), Justification and knowledge. Dordrecht: Reidel. p. 1-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9493-5_1
  20. Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A (2016). Deep learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  21. Gödel K (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatsh Math Phys 38:173-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01700692
  22. Hardt M, Recht B, Singer Y (2016). Train faster, generalize better: stability of stochastic gradient descent. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning. p. 1225-34.
  23. Heath TL (1921). A history of Greek mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3603925
  24. Hilbert D (1899). Grundlagen der Geometrie. Leipzig: Teubner.
  25. Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. J Physiol 160:106-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1962.sp006837
  26. Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1968). Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex. J Physiol 195:215-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1968.sp008455
  27. Ikonomopoulos A (1980). Traitement de caractéristiques d’images en vue de l’analyse de scènes en robotique. PhD thesis, Université de Paris.
  28. Kunt M, Ikonomopoulos A, Kocher M (1985). Second-generation image-coding techniques. Proc IEEE 73:549-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/PROC.1985.13184
  29. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G (2015). Deep learning. Nature 521:436-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539
  30. Lipton ZC (2018). The mythos of model interpretability. Commun ACM 61:36-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3233231
  31. Marr D (1982). Vision: a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
  32. McCarthy J, Minsky ML, Rochester N, Shannon CE (1955). A proposal for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence.
  33. McCulloch WS, Pitts W (1943). A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bull Math Biophys 5:115-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02478259
  34. Newell A, Simon HA (1956). The logic theory machine. IRE Trans Inf Theory 2:61-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1956.1056797
  35. Papadimitriou CH (1994). Computational complexity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  36. Papadimitriou CH (2011). Algorithms, complexity, and the sciences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108(Suppl 3):18238-44.
  37. Peirce CS (1878). How to make our ideas clear. Pop Sci Mon 12:286-302.
  38. Popper KR (1963). Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3050617
  39. Rosenblatt F (1958). The perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychol Rev 65:386-408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042519
  40. Rosenblueth A, Wiener N, Bigelow J (1943). Behavior, purpose and teleology. Philos Sci 10:18-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/286788
  41. Rudin C (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nat Mach Intell 1:206-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x
  42. Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ (1986). Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature 323:533-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/323533a0
  43. Shalev-Shwartz S, Ben-David S (2014). Understanding machine learning: from theory to algorithms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107298019
  44. Shannon CE (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379-423, 623-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
  45. Turing AM (1936). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proc Lond Math Soc 42:230-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.230
  46. Vapnik VN (1998). Statistical learning theory. New York: Wiley.

Metrics

Citations and online attention from Dimensions, Altmetric and PlumX.

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

License

Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.