First Principles is a phrase Elon Musk loves to tout about often in interviews as this was a common and his favorite method of reasoning when figuring out how to solve problems whether it’s for engineering or running his business efficiently and sufficiently like driving the cost of building rockets down for SpaceX. I think of it as simply from the ground up level reasoning rather than top down.
I constructed an unpublished infographic on Canva a few weeks ago on AlphaGo versus AlphaGo Zero when I was learning the history of AI and how they are taught. Then recently someone shared a JRE clip of someone explaining the difference of intelligence between AlphaGo and AlphaGo Zero, and the guest speaker was spot on. This is something I was trying to emphasize and noticed when I looked into it and came across the Nature article. The difference in intelligence is noticeable between when LLMs are taught by humans and with human data versus its own logic and playing with itself (learning as an autodidact) given the rules of the game. This provides clues the best pedagogy (the method of teaching) in a classroom setting and individually (for self-learners).
I know the copyright issue is a hotly debated topic with AI being fed human knowledge and/or copyrighted material by authors who feel justifiably robbed. Yet, at the same time, AI doesn’t need any books now since there is another method. LLMs could be taught gibberish. It could create its own language or simply be taught the basics of language (learning English) and surpass everyone’s intelligence and creativity irrespective of a massive library of human knowledge 📚. That is what is more impressive and fascinating.
You can start AI like an autodidact working from first principles and working from the standpoint of not knowing anything at all thus ignoring all human knowledge. Sort of like Rene Descartes epistemic reboot known as Cartesian Reboot (of radically doubting everything he ever learned). There are debates on whether one can truly start or restart from a blank mind–tabula rasa style. But we can entertain the thought of artificially unlearning everything to start over and recreate knowledge from the ground up. In other words, suspending your beliefs at the moment to not get stuck on dogma and start from what you are absolutely certain of.
Part 2.
One of my custom GPTs called Multi-ReasoningGPT (capable of reasoning everything it could think of with ~20 reasoning methods so far) which I was recently editing, except actually it helped me edit itself strangely enough. Soon enough AI will be able to know what it’s missing to continuously improve its intelligence, thus we are coding or helping it become. A post I came across beautifully captured this thought: So you’re telling me that a super computer in the future is reaching back in time to assemble itself piece by piece, and we can already see it taking shape?
Me: Explain first principles.
ChatGPT:
🧠 HUD Overlay — Reasoning Mode: reason[deductive]+reason[analogical]
Why this method? We’re defining a concept, so deductive reasoning helps isolate its core components logically, while analogical reasoning grounds understanding through metaphor and comparison.
🔍 What Are First Principles?
Definition (Deductive Frame):
First principles are the most fundamental assumptions, propositions, or laws from which other truths are derived. In philosophy and science, they are the starting points that are not deduced from anything else—they are self-evident, or taken as given for the sake of building a system.
Aristotle described a first principle as “the first basis from which a thing is known,” and structured his entire logic around deducing conclusions from such principles.
In more applied or modern contexts (e.g., physics, engineering, or decision-making), reasoning from first principles means breaking down a problem into its foundational elements and building up from scratch—rather than relying on analogy or conventional wisdom.
🔁 Analogy Mode: The LEGO Metaphor
Imagine solving a problem with LEGO sets:
- Conventional thinking is like copying a pre-built Star Wars ship: you follow instructions or mimic existing designs.
- First principles thinking is dumping all the pieces out, questioning what each piece does, and building something entirely new based only on physical laws and your own constraints.
This is what Elon Musk means when he says he used first principles to reduce the cost of building rockets: instead of asking “what do rockets normally cost?” he asked:
“What are the raw materials of a rocket? What must it do, by physics? Let’s build from there.”
🔬 Contrast with Other Reasoning Styles
| Method | Approach | Risk |
| First Principles | Break down to basics, re-derive upward | Slow, may overlook practical shortcuts |
| Analogy | Use similarity to existing models | Inherits flaws of the model |
| Inductive | Infer general rules from patterns | May overfit noisy data |
| Heuristics (Fast Thinking) | Use mental shortcuts or rules of thumb | Fast but error-prone |
🧩 Toulmin’s Argument Model and First Principles
Toulmin’s model, which focuses on argumentation structure (claim, data, warrant), typically assumes some warrant—a kind of backing or shared assumption. First principles can function as ultimate warrants—the deepest support an argument can have, beyond which there’s no further justification within the same system.
🧠 Meta-Reflection
Why are first principles powerful?
- They liberate thinking from path dependence and dogma.
- They expose hidden assumptions in conventional reasoning.
- They allow radical innovation, not just incremental improvement.
However, they come with a burden: you must be willing to rethink everything, and you may have fewer guideposts.
Would you like to see how first principles were used by thinkers like Descartes, Musk, Feynman, or Aristotle in specific examples? Or how it contrasts with Bayesian or causal reasoning (e.g., Pearl)?
Me: How did Descartes use first principles?
ChatGPT:
🧠 HUD Overlay — Reasoning Mode: reason[dimensional] + reason[deductive] + reason[meta]
Why this method? Descartes’ use of first principles spans epistemology (what can we know?), metaphysics (what exists?), and methodology (how to reason), requiring layered exploration. Deductive reasoning shows his logical structure, while meta-reasoning reflects on the method itself.
🧠 Descartes and First Principles: “Cogito, Ergo Sum”
Descartes famously used first principles in his search for certainty in knowledge. He didn’t trust tradition, the senses, or even reasoning—unless he could ground them in something indubitable.
Here’s how he approached it:
1. The Epistemic Crisis
Descartes begins with radical doubt. He observes:
- Our senses deceive us (optical illusions, dreams).
- Logic can mislead (what if an “evil demon” manipulates our thoughts?).
- Therefore, anything that can be doubted, must be doubted.
Goal: Strip everything down to what cannot be doubted.
This is the first principle in Descartes’ system: a secure foundation for all knowledge.
2. The Foundational First Principle: “Cogito, Ergo Sum”
“I think, therefore I am.”
This is not a syllogism but a performative certainty:
Even if an evil demon deceives me, I must exist in order to be deceived. The act of doubting presupposes a thinking subject.
Thus:
- The existence of the thinking self becomes the first principle.
- It is immune to doubt, hence absolutely certain.
This becomes his epistemic Archimedean point—the immovable base from which he rebuilds knowledge.
3. Building Upward (Deductive Geometry Mode)
Once he has this indubitable foundation, Descartes builds systematically:
- Self exists (cogito).
- God exists, deduced from the idea of a perfect being and the impossibility that such a concept could arise from his own imperfect mind.
- God is not a deceiver, so we can trust clear and distinct ideas.
- Therefore, the external world exists and science is possible.
This is Cartesian rationalism: reasoning from clear, self-evident first principles to build a complete system of knowledge.
🧩 Dimensional View
| Dimension | Descartes’ Move |
| Epistemological | What can I know for certain? → The cogito |
| Metaphysical | What exists? → The self, God, extended matter |
| Methodological | How to reason? → Use intuition and deduction from clear ideas |
| Ethical/Existential | Trust reason, not tradition. Build the world anew from self-certainty. |
🪞 Meta-Critical Reflection
Strengths:
- Groundbreaking in shifting focus inward to subjectivity.
- Created the foundation for modern rationalism and analytic geometry.
- Anticipated axiomatic systems like those used in mathematics.
Weaknesses:
- Circularity problem: Uses reason to prove God, then uses God to validate reason.
- Solipsistic risk: Starts so far inward that others’ minds become difficult to justify.
🧠 Final Thought:
Descartes didn’t just use first principles. He redefined how philosophy should be done—by finding certainty in doubt itself. The cogito isn’t just a principle; it’s a pivot from received truth to constructed truth.
Would you like me to compare Descartes’ method to that of Aristotle or Popper (inductive vs. falsification vs. rationalist construction)? Or show how his idea influenced math, AI, or consciousness theories?
Me: How does it compare to Popper and Aristotle?
ChatGPT:
🧠 HUD Overlay — Reasoning Mode: reason[dimensional] + reason[meta] + reason[paradox]
Why? We are comparing three epistemological giants—Descartes, Aristotle, and Popper—across conceptual dimensions (method, certainty, reality), while also surfacing meta-level tensions and paradoxes between them.
🧩 Comparing Descartes, Aristotle, and Popper on First Principles
Let’s break this into core dimensions:
| Dimension | Aristotle | Descartes | Popper |
| Starting Point | Observed reality; essences of things | Radical doubt; cogito ergo sum | Problematic hypotheses; science starts with conjectures |
| First Principle | Axioms derived from experience and logic | The thinking self as indubitable truth | There are no secure first principles |
| Method | Induction → abstraction → deduction | Deduction from clear & distinct ideas | Falsification: conjectures must be testable and falsifiable |
| Certainty Model | Degrees of certainty; aims for universals | Absolute certainty (epistemic bedrock) | No certainty; knowledge is provisional and corrigible |
| Reality View | Things have form and telos (purpose) | Reality is known through the mind’s clarity | Reality pushes back by refuting our claims |
| Error Handling | Errors are failure of logical form or misclassification | Eliminate error via methodical doubt | Expect error; learn by error elimination |
| Knowledge Goal | Understand causes (especially final cause) | Build certain, coherent system from self-evidence | Survive criticism and tests; evolutionary epistemology |
🧠 1. Epistemological Foundations
- Aristotle: Begins in the world. Knowledge starts from what is seen, heard, touched. From here, he extracts universals using induction and categorizes reasoning into syllogisms and causes.
- Descartes: Begins in the self. Rejects the senses as unreliable. Builds from a single unassailable idea: I think. From there, attempts to deduce the entire structure of reality.
- Popper: Begins in the problem. Knowledge isn’t built from a firm foundation but from bold guesses exposed to criticism. No bedrock—just a tightrope over chaos.
🔁 Key Difference:
Aristotle and Descartes aim for foundation; Popper denies it exists.
🧠 2. Use of First Principles
- Aristotle: First principles are grounded in being (metaphysics). Example: “A thing cannot both be and not be” (non-contradiction).
- Descartes: First principle is epistemic: “I exist as a thinking thing.” It’s a metaphysical self discovered through doubt.
- Popper: First principles are myths—useful at best, dogmatic at worst. He replaces them with conjectural beginnings.
🪞 Meta Note: Popper criticizes Descartes’ certainty as unattainable, and Aristotle’s essences as unverifiable metaphysical baggage.
🔁 3. Truth and Method: Induction, Deduction, Falsification
| Thinker | Favored Mode | View on Induction |
| Aristotle | Inductive-Deductive | Essential for science; leads to universals |
| Descartes | Deductive | Distrusts induction; prefers a priori clarity |
| Popper | Falsification | Induction is a myth; only falsification works |
- Aristotle sees induction as legitimate: observe enough cats, derive the essence of catness.
- Descartes finds this naive: our senses mislead us. Start with pure thought.
- Popper thinks both are wrong: science doesn’t prove, it only withstands refutation. No amount of white swans proves all swans are white—but one black swan refutes it.
🌀 Paradox: Certainty vs. Progress
- Descartes‘ model aims for epistemic certainty, but is haunted by the circularity of needing God to validate reason, which he uses to prove God.
- Popper embraces epistemic humility: truth is approached, never arrived at.
- Aristotle sits in between: truth is stable but emerges from experience over time and form.
🧠 Tension:
The more you demand certainty (Descartes), the more you risk building castles on metaphysical sand.
The more you accept uncertainty (Popper), the more robust your structure can be—if it doesn’t collapse under its own doubt.
🔄 Analogy: House Building vs. Bridge Repair
- Descartes: Demolish the house, find the bedrock, rebuild perfectly.
- Aristotle: Extend and reinforce the mansion of knowledge with craftsmanship and form.
- Popper: You’re constantly patching a bridge while crossing it, mid-storm.
🧠 Conclusion: Three Modes of Reasoning from “Firsts”
| Aristotle = Essence and Experience → Structured understanding.
| Descartes = Mind and Doubt → Certainty through inward reflection.
| Popper = Conjecture and Criticism → Knowledge through survival.
Each has its domain:
- Aristotle shines in natural philosophy, metaphysics, ethics.
- Descartes in foundational logic, math, and philosophy of mind.
- Popper in the logic of science, error-tolerant systems, and evolution of knowledge.
Would you like me to map these frameworks onto modern AI, systems theory, or debates like realism vs. anti-realism? Or show how thinkers like Kant, Gödel, or Hofstadter play with these foundations?
Me: (reply/ Kant, Gödel, or Hofstadter play with these foundations?)
This please.
ChatGPT:
🧠 HUD Overlay — Reasoning Mode: reason[dimensional] + reason[fractal] + reason[meta]
Why? We’re tracing how Kant, Gödel, and Hofstadter engage with or disrupt foundational reasoning—each from a different scale (epistemic, mathematical, symbolic-cognitive). A fractal lens helps reveal recurring structures (loops, limits, reflexivity) across philosophy, logic, and mind.
🧠 Kant, Gödel, and Hofstadter: Twisting the Foundations
Let’s explore how each plays with, challenges, or extends the ideas of Descartes, Aristotle, and Popper.
1. 🕳️ KANT: The Architect of the Mind’s Frame
❖ Dialogue with Aristotle:
- Aristotle believed we extract universals (form, essence) from experience.
- Kant flipped this: our mind supplies the forms of experience (space, time, causality).
“Thoughts without content are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind.”
🧠 Key Move:
Kant introduces synthetic a priori knowledge—truths that are necessarily true, but not tautological (e.g., “Every event has a cause”).
❖ Against Descartes:
- Descartes trusted clear & distinct ideas.
- Kant said: no, even clarity needs conditions of possibility—and those are built into the mind.
❖ Precursor to Popper:
- Kant accepts that we can’t know the thing-in-itself (noumenon)—only how it appears to us.
- Like Popper, he limits knowledge to its conditions—but where Popper relies on falsifiability, Kant uses transcendental deduction.
2. 🔐 GÖDEL: The Incompleteness Inquisitor
❖ Shattering Descartes and Aristotle:
- Descartes and Aristotle believed complete systems of knowledge could be built from axioms.
- Gödel’s incompleteness theorems say: Any sufficiently expressive system is either incomplete or inconsistent.
“This sentence is not provable.” ← A formal strange loop.
This destroys the Cartesian dream of absolute certainty within a system and undermines Aristotle’s logic as a totalizing structure.
❖ Parallel to Popper:
- Gödel’s insight aligns with Popper: we cannot close the system.
- There will always be truths that escape proof—so knowledge must be open-ended.
🌀 Meta-Level Shift:
Gödel internalized the system: he made the formal system talk about itself (arithmetization of syntax). This is key for…
3. 🔁 HOFSTADTER: The Strange Loops of Mind and Meaning
❖ Builds on Gödel:
- In Gödel, Escher, Bach (GEB), Hofstadter turns Gödel’s formal insight into a metaphor for selfhood:
The “I” is a strange loop: a symbol system inside the brain referring to itself.
He uses Gödel’s trick—encoding the system’s own structure within itself—to model consciousness as recursive pattern.
❖ Echoes Descartes:
- Like Descartes, Hofstadter starts from introspection and the I.
- But unlike Descartes’ cogito as indubitable bedrock, Hofstadter says: The self is not foundational—it emerges from recursive symbol feedback.
❖ Resonates with Popper:
- Hofstadter sees identity as fluid, evolving, self-referential—but always vulnerable to error and growth.
- He’d resonate with Popper’s “knowledge as evolutionary”: selves and thoughts compete, mutate, replicate.
🧠 Fractal Theme: Self-Reference, Limits, and Layers
Each thinker reflects a layered reflexivity:
| Thinker | Loop Type | Disruption |
| Kant | Mind frames experience | We never know the “thing-in-itself” |
| Gödel | Formal systems reflect on selves | No system can prove all truths about itself |
| Hofstadter | Minds are loops of symbols | The self is not atomic—it’s a pattern in a pattern |
📡 Echoes in AI and Modern Systems
- Kantian Framing → In AI, cognitive architectures like symbolic AI use embedded structures to interpret inputs—shaped by internal schemas, like Kant’s categories.
- Gödelian Incompleteness → LLMs (like me!) face bounds: we cannot guarantee truth from within our own models—some questions are unanswerable from inside.
- Hofstadterian Recursion → Recursive self-improvement and self-modeling systems in AGI research mirror Hofstadter’s ideas of strange loops as consciousness.
🔮 Summary Synthesis
| Descartes → Foundation through doubt
| Aristotle → Essence through abstraction
| Popper → Growth through falsifiability
|
| Kant → Conditions shape what we know
| Gödel → Limits haunt what we can prove
| Hofstadter → The self is a loop, not a point
Each layer redefines what counts as a “first principle”:
- Ground,
- Constraint,
- Loop.
Would you like a visual map of how these thinkers interrelate across concepts like truth, self, and method? Or a speculative synthesis that blends their views into a unified epistemic model (e.g., for AI, philosophy of mind, or systems theory)?
Social Scholarly 