Physical Intelligence Technologies

• Physical intelligence technologies are systems that couple computational algorithms with physical constraints like energy, space, and time.
• They use models such as directed bipartite graphs to map computational processes to measurable physical resources, ensuring resource accountability.
• Innovative metrics, including energy-bounded algorithmic entropy and black-hole equations, demonstrate how exponential resource costs impact intelligent system design.

Physical intelligence technologies are technological systems that integrate computational intelligence with the physical world through close coupling of hardware, energy, materials, physical space, environmental sensing, and mechanical or spatial constraints. Unlike purely digital AI, physical intelligence technologies emphasize the intersection of theory (e.g., algorithmic complexity and inductive inference), resource constraints (energy, volume, and time), and practical realization of intelligent computation within the fundamental boundaries imposed by physics (Özkural, 2015).

1. Graphical and Physical Models of Computation

A foundational concept is the mapping of computation to directed bipartite graphs, where vertices correspond to either primitive operations or memory cells, and edges express causal dependencies. In this model:

• Each vertex and edge is annotated with a discrete time stamp for its execution.
• Inputs and outputs are represented as subsets of graph vertices.
• Physical costs—such as unit space-time volume ($v_u$), energy ($e_u$), and spatial extent ($s_u$)—are ascribed to these vertices and edges.

This structure explicitly connects computational logic to physical implementation by requiring that all resource costs (energy, space, and time) be assigned and accounted for within the computational model. The concept of “self-contained computation” mandates that all necessary physical resources reside within a compact, bounded region of space-time, an essential design goal for physically constrained intelligent machines (Özkural, 2015).

2. Resource-Based Complexity: Logical Depth, Volume, and Energy

The extension of classical complexity measures into the physical regime is central to physical intelligence technologies.

• Logical Depth ($L_U(\mu)$): Defined as the runtime of the shortest program producing a stochastic source $\mu$, $\displaystyle L_U(\mu) = t(\pi^*)$, where $\pi^*$ minimizes both program length and simulation time.
• Asymptotic Time Bound: Expected simulation time for $\mu$ obeys $t(\mu) \leq L_U(\mu) \cdot 2^{H_U(\mu) + 1}$.
• Logical Volume ($L_U^V(\mu)$): The space-time volume encompassing the computation of $\pi^*$, with $V_U(\pi^*)$ measuring physical resources consumed during inference.
• Conceptual Jump Volume (CJV): $CJV(\mu) = L_U^V(\mu) \cdot 2^{H_U(\mu)}$ quantifies volume scaling with the algorithmic entropy.
• Energy of Computation ($E_U(\pi^*)$): The minimal energy required, leading to Conceptual Jump Energy (CJE): $CJE(\mu) = E_U(\pi^*) \cdot 2^{H_U(\mu)}$.

These relations demonstrate that resource requirements for inductive inference scale exponentially with the information-theoretic complexity ($H_U(\mu)$) of the problem source. The implication is that physical intelligence systems must be engineered to efficiently manage such exponential resource demands, or face rapid escalation of energy and spatial requirements for incrementally more complex tasks (Özkural, 2015).

3. Black-Hole Equation of Inductive Inference

The “black-hole equation” relates core physical quantities required for optimal inductive inference. Formally,

$$CJTE(\mu) = (d_e \cdot L_U^V(\mu) + S_U(\mu) \cdot d_m c^2) \cdot 2^{H_U(\mu)}$$

with the bound

$CJTE(\mu) \leq E_t(\mu) \leq 2 \cdot CJTE(\mu)$

where

• $d_e = e_u/v_u$ (energy density),
• $L_U^V(\mu)$ (logical volume),
• $S_U(\mu)$ (maximum spatial extent—memory/space),
• $d_m$ (mass density),
• $c$ (speed of light).

The analogy to black holes encapsulates the exponential “concentration” of computational resources. As $H_U(\mu)$ increases, energy and volume quickly approach the ultimate physical bounds, just as the mass–energy within a Schwarzschild radius defines the limit for gravitational collapse. For physical AI, this reveals that physics—not merely computational architecture—may dominate the performance and feasibility of solving highly complex inference problems (Özkural, 2015).

4. Energy-Bounded Algorithmic Entropy

To reconcile energy efficiency with program complexity, the energy-bounded algorithmic entropy is introduced:

$$H_e(x) = \min \{\, |\pi| + \log_2(E_U(\pi))\ |\ U(\pi) = x \}$$

This measure fuses algorithmic (length) complexity and energy cost on an additive log scale, establishing a prior that penalizes high-energy solutions and thus favors representations that are efficient not only in information content but also in physical resource usage. This is highly salient in systems where energy constraints are dominant—micro-intelligent devices, autonomous platforms, embedded AI, and beyond (Özkural, 2015).

5. Physical Limits: Ultimate Boundaries for Intelligence

The work synthesizes several physical and thermodynamic constraints:

• Landauer’s Limit: $kT \ln 2$ joules per logical bit erased—establishing the minimum energy cost of information erasure.
• Margolus–Levitin Bound: Quantum mechanical upper limit on operations per energy unit, $2E/h$ operations given energy $E$.
• Bremermann and Lloyd’s Limits: Maximum feasible computation within a given mass or the universe itself, e.g., $10^{51}$ operations for a $1$ kg “black-hole computer,” and $10^{120}$ operations within the universe.

A corollary derived in the paper shows that for a logical volume of unity, algorithmic complexity is capped: $H(\mu) \leq 397.6$ bits. Thus, beyond approximately $400$ bits of algorithmic complexity, the physical resource cost (energy, space-time, mass) makes inference infeasible under real-universe constraints (Özkural, 2015).

6. Methodological and Practical Implications

This resource-centric theory compels system designers and theorists to:

• Rigorously account for energy, space, and volume when considering learning and inference algorithms.
• Recognize that minimal improvements in prediction capability or inference complexity may require super-exponential increases in energy or physical resources.
• Employ incremental learning strategies and physically feasible model-selection criteria.
• Avoid unconstrained model complexity in physical AI architectures by considering measures such as energy-bounded entropies when performing model selection or Bayesian inference.

These observations unify information theory, algorithmic information theory, and physical engineering into a coherent discipline of physical intelligence technologies.

7. Canonical Formulas

A table of the central mathematical relations is as follows:

Concept	Formula
Logical depth (stochastic source)	$L_U(\mu) = t(\pi^*)$
Asymptotic simulation time bound	$t(\mu) \leq L_U(\mu)\cdot 2^{H_U(\mu)+1}$
Conceptual Jump Volume (CJV)	$CJV(\mu) = L_U^V(\mu)\cdot 2^{H_U(\mu)}$
Black-hole equation	$$CJTE(\mu) = (d_e L_U^V(\mu) + S_U(\mu) d_m c^2) 2^{H_U(\mu)}$$
Energy-bounded algorithmic entropy	$$H_e(x) = \min \{ |\pi| + \log_2(E_U(\pi)) \mid U(\pi)=x\}$$

These equations form the analytical backbone for mapping abstract computational problems and their algorithmic complexity to the concrete, measurable physical costs required for their resolution (Özkural, 2015).

---

Physical intelligence technologies, as characterized by these principles, require a multidisciplinary approach involving theoretical computer science, physics, and engineering disciplines to ensure that intelligent computation is not only theoretically tractable but also physically realizable within the bounds of our universe.