Advertisement

Observation and Interaction

Invited Paper
  • Edward A. LeeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11417)

Abstract

This paper connects three concepts in computer science, zero-knowledge proofs, causal reasoning, and bisimulation, to show that interaction is more powerful than observation. Observation is the use of input data plus, possibly, tractable computation, in such a way that the observer has no effect on the source of the data. Interaction is observation plus action that affects the source of the data. Observation lets the data “speak for itself” and is objective, whereas interaction is first-person and subjective. Zero-knowledge proofs are a strategy for building confidence in some fact while acquiring no additional information other than that the fact is likely to be true. They fall short of absolute certainty and they require interaction. This paper shows that absolutely certainty for such scenarios can be modeled by a bisimulation relation. Causal reasoning has also been shown to require subjective involvement. It is not possible by observation alone, and like zero-knowledge proofs, requires first-person involvement and interaction. This paper shows that bisimulation relations can reveal flaws in causal reasoning.

Keywords

Zero-knowledge proof Causal reasoning Bisimulation Randomized controlled trials 

References

  1. 1.
    Agha, G.A.: Abstracting interaction patterns: a programming paradigm for open distributed systems. In: Najm, E., Stefani, J.B. (eds.) Formal Methods for Open Object-based Distributed Systems. IFIPAICT, pp. 135–153. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35082-0_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babai, L.: Trading group theory for randomness. In: Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 421–429. ACM (1985).  https://doi.org/10.1145/22145.22192
  3. 3.
    Black, H.S.: Stabilized feed-back amplifiers. Electr. Eng. 53, 114–120 (1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldin, D., Smolka, S., Attie, P., Sonderegger, E.: Turing machines, transition systems, and interaction. Inf. Comput. 194(2), 101–128 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., Rackoff, C.: The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems (extended abstract). In: Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 291–304. ACM (1985)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., Rackoff, C.: The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems. SIAM J. Comput. 18(1), 186–208 (1989).  https://doi.org/10.1137/0218012MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee, E.A., Seshia, S.A.: Introduction to Embedded Systems - A Cyber-Physical Systems Approach, Second edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (2017). http://LeeSeshia.org
  8. 8.
    Lee, E.A.: Living Digital Beings – A New Life Form on Our Planet? MIT Press, Cambridge (2020, to appear)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Milner, R.: Elements of interaction. Commun. ACM 36, 78–89 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Park, D.: Concurrency and automata on infinite sequences. In: Deussen, P. (ed.) GI-TCS 1981. LNCS, vol. 104, pp. 167–183. Springer, Heidelberg (1981).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0017309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pearl, J.: Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000). (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pearl, J., Mackenzie, D.: The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. Basic Books, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quisquater, J.-J., et al.: How to explain zero-knowledge protocols to your children. In: Brassard, G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1989. LNCS, vol. 435, pp. 628–631. Springer, New York (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34805-0_60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sangiorgi, D.: On the origins of bisimulation and coinduction. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 31(4), 15:1–15:41 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1516507.1516510. Article 15, Pub. date: May 2009CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Talcott, C.L.: Interaction semantics for components of distributed systems. In: Najm, E., Stefani, J.B. (eds.) Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS). IFIPAICT, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35082-0_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thelen, E.: Grounded in the world: developmental origins of the embodied mind. Infancy 1(1), 3–28 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wegner, P.: Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Commun. ACM 40(5), 80–91 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1145/253769.253801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wiener, N.: Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Librairie Hermann & Cie, Paris, and MIT Press, Cambridge (1948)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UC BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations