The Existential Theory of Research: Why Discovery Is Hard
Angshul Majumdar

TL;DR
This paper introduces the Existential Theory of Research (ETR), a formal framework showing that discovery complexity arises from fundamental constraints in representation, observation, and computation, making scientific discovery inherently difficult.
Contribution
The paper formalizes the limits of discovery by modeling it as constrained explanation recovery, revealing inherent trade-offs and structural reasons for scientific difficulty.
Findings
No method can optimize representation, data, and algorithms simultaneously.
Representation mismatch can inflate apparent complexity of problems.
The intrinsic difficulty of discovery stems from fundamental uncertainty and computational hardness.
Abstract
Can scientific discovery be made arbitrarily easy by choosing the right representation, collecting enough data, and deploying sufficiently powerful algorithms? This paper argues that the answer is fundamentally negative. We introduce the Existential Theory of Research (ETR), a formal framework that models discovery as the recovery of structured explanations under constraints of representation, observation, and computation. Within this framework, we show that these three components cannot be simultaneously optimized: no method can guarantee universally simple explanations, arbitrarily compressed observations, and efficient exact inference. This limitation is not model-specific, but arises from a synthesis of uncertainty principles in sparse representation, sample complexity bounds in high-dimensional recovery, and the computational hardness of exact inference. We further show that…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
