Unlocking the Magic of Zero-Knowledge Proofs: Disintegration of Philosophy and Science (Part 1)

Philosophy and science have played a crucial role in paving our understanding of the world and continue now, more than ever. Our life today is simply the outcome of the interplay of those two ways of depicting reality. In today's world, however, science has gathered an all-together interest from what I have seen.

Or at least when it comes to externalization. Philosophy has sought its way within each of us, and our guiding principles have become so rooted inside us that we often forget to check and test our principles of what morality and ethics could mean. The field of AI has ultimately opened a door that is far from closing.

The rising of philosophical implications in the world of programming and mathematics obliges us to ponder way beyond what we or those before us considered normal.

There are no weird times. There is only a lack of understanding.

The Stage of Zero-Knowledge Proofs

Turning our glare to Zero-Knowledge Proofs and the ideas implied, we see in front of us a small stage where three actors dance. In front of the action, there is a door. A door that requires a secret key to open. In front of the door, we have our main actor.

Lisa (the prover). Lisa supposedly has the secret key to open the door, however, Bob (the verifier), who stays behind Lisa must not understand anything about the process of opening the door but only conclude after repeated openings that Lisa indeed has the key and thus, grant her permission to enter.

The overall key aspect of this concept is that Bob receives no information at all, not even the information displayed in how many times Lisa took a breath during the attempts to open the door.

Now, I, for one am not really into all that mathematical and science foundational background of how this happens. Don't get me wrong, I love math, it's just that I am too lazy to pass beyond the conceptual ideas behind it.

With that said, I want to now offer my view on how I see such a zero-knowledge-proof system. A way that, since makes sense to me, I am sure will make for many.

Let's turn our thoughts back to the stage and try to strip all the characters of their bodies, leaving only their clothes behind. Which I will assume is their true conceptual role in this play.

The door is the logical gate that holds the information of the key and can transmit outside only whether the presented key is right or wrong.

Bob as the verifier has the role of observing and giving or not permission for Lisa to enter the door. Bob can be seen as a judge who bases his decision on proof solely. Whether the door opens or not after Lisa's attempts.

Now for Lisa, it may be harder to depict her essence because just like the door, she may hold the key (or not), but she has to send the key without transmitting any external information.

When we try to set our stage literally, only magic can solve this problem. However, we must remember that we work in the domain of concepts, where what we consider magic outside, is one of the guiding principles (along with logic, which states the truth-hood and validity of our construction).

So Lisa has to find a way in which the key is sent outside Bob's vision or since Zero-Knowledge means in the end Zero-Knowledge, Lisa's external outputs should be receptible by the door only.

Here, we cross into a realm of (possible) sub-concepts. Where any external observation is analyzed from a specific perspective and changed partially or totally. This happens a lot in our daily lives; how do you think we can understand sign language?

Same external output, yet, seen from a pre-defined sub-medium.

Now, the question that arises is: Is the sub-medium the only way to transfer such a key without external outputs? Or more precisely, without external truths? My understanding breaks here since no one gave me a clear answer, after all, ChatGPT was my only companion along the way (I already told you I am lazy).

Then a thought clicked. Without a sub-medium, there's no way to transfer any

hidden information. The key role in Zero-Knowledge. I believe that's why it's called Zero-Knowledge and not Zero-Information.

This means that there can still be a way to crack open the code, but it would take eons probably. Maybe the idea of perfect security is as philosophical as AGI (and when I say AGI, I mean the self-awareness implications). After all, how can the door open when needed unless it too has free will?

Then comes the matter of choice and ethics and so so so, so let's turn back to where we were.

So, we have made the difference between Zero-Knowledge and Zero-Information. Now, what about the way we implement a sub-medium into this key? In a sense, one broader view of the sub-medium can be seen in implementing a mirroring sense.

All that Lisa does is seen mirrored from the door, and only Lisa and the door know that. However, if Bob wanted to enter, it would be very easy to eventually think about this and try the combination himself. Then, certain rituals would be required.

Rituals that may change cyclical after each opening. Sustaining such a system in order would require memory for both the door and Lisa to be able to retain and change among them. One could always check the security by checking the memory. Then, questions about gibberish memory come into play in order to scare off the intruders who may want to bypass.

Alluding later to the sense of courage and self-esteem as you broke down 1TB of key complexity. Doesn't it? I am not fully aware of the techniques used today and other implications, but the fact is, everyone can contribute to a broader picture of this play. Everyone can play a key role in shaping either the door or the mischievousness of Bob.

All I hope is that whoever chooses to help Bob, will help him only to see his full potential so that later, new avenues will be open to overcome any devious aspect of his evolving ego.

Those who know its face, may not feel its presence. Those who feel its presence, don't feel necessarily evil. The devil may be a deceiver, but sometimes, he deceives us not to seek him until we are ready.

For his power can lead to both unimaginable success and disastrous failure. - This message can resonate in a lot of ways with all kinds of people, depending on their views, past, and even future. Those who know what I know may have depicted the same or similar view of the Good Devil.

The one who rushes in where progress fails. Sometimes, progress also leads to separation. Doesn't it? It is the willingness of goodness to lift others alongside us. But then, how would they react if they were helped out of pity?

I will stop, I promise; I just wanted to point out that all those problems and dilemmas we have felt or had will be influenced and contemplated further into tomorrow's society. I know that now it's hard since the evidence can only be concluded through logic and overall experience. But there will come a time when seconds will become minutes.

Without evolving there's no continuation. Without acceptance, there's no evolving. Without understanding, there's no acceptance. Without evolving, there's no understanding. It's a crazy world, but what makes the storm seem calmer are our own inner views, morals, and ethical foundations.

Without them, how can we be sure that our home will not fly during the next storm? Now, I sincerely need a break from all of this. But one last important aspect to remember. Writing is always easier than reading. Because who can understand yourself if not you?

I will eventually continue the narrative and the promised merging of Magic with Philosophy in the week that is to come. I intend to make it my biggest project (well, my first-ever big project).

I hope you enjoyed my brief description of Zero-Knowledge, my depiction of Good and Evil, and overall, my formality. Is it through your writing that magic brings your thoughts to paper? It is through your magic that you refine your writing.

Until the next we meet, I hope more question marks will be straightened up.