UDC: 141.3
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2025-3-141


viewing

ALGORITHM REALITY – INTENTIONALITY AND INSTRUMENTALITY

V. Е. Kukel
Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia
e-mail: lac.kenon@gmail.com

Abstract. This article presents a philosophical analysis of algorithms through the synthesis of Edmund Husserl’s concept of intentionality and Martin Heidegger’s instrumentality, revealing their ontological status as phenomena that connect consciousness and practical activity. The author proposes a synthetic model integrating three key aspects: the instrumental nature of algorithms, which «disappear» during use by focusing attention on the result (Heidegger); their intentional essence as products of consciousness directed toward constituting objects through formalization (Husserl); and Quentin Meillassoux’s concept of contingency, which frames algorithms as temporary stabilizations of a fundamentally unstable reality.

The study examines the dual role of algorithms: as operational tools organizing activity through functional predetermination and as structures defining the knowable boundaries of reality. Meillassoux’s critique of correlationism serves as the basis for rethinking algorithmic rationality within the context of radical openness of being, where formalization confronts inherent unpredictability. Using examples such as stochastic algorithms (Monte Carlo method, genetic algorithms), emergent properties of neural networks, and the «black box» phenomenon, the article demonstrates the dialectic between planned functionality and spontaneous manifestations of contingency. Algorithms emerge as a paradoxical unity: on one hand, they act as «transparent» tools of technical rationality; on the other, they reveal «uncontrolled materiality», exposing the limits of formalization and determinism.

The theoretical significance of the research lies in developing a comprehensive approach that interprets algorithms as: 1) a principle for implementing the scientific method, 2) a mediator between subject and object, and 3) an operationalization of digital-era rationality. These findings contribute to contemporary debates on the nature of artificial intelligence and machine learning, emphasizing the need to integrate philosophical reflection into the analysis of technological systems. The work also offers a new perspective on algorithmic rationality as a dynamic process balancing order and chaos, which is crucial for understanding the epistemological challenges of the 21st century. Within the framework of object-oriented ontology (OOO), it is shown how algorithms simultaneously belong to the realms of the ideal and the material, shaping new modes of interaction with reality. Special attention is paid to the role of randomness in modern computational systems, which, contrary to traditional views, becomes a necessary element of efficiency, confirming Meillassoux’s thesis of contingency as a fundamental property of being. The findings of the study suggest that the algorithm functions not only as a technical tool but also as a practice of rationality. To demonstrate this, the algorithm is examined as a phenomenon that synthesizes instrumentality (M. Heidegger) and intentionality (E. Husserl) within the framework of object-oriented ontology (G. Harman, Q. Meillassoux). Methodologically, the study draws on speculative-realist critique.

Key words: algorithm, algorithm reality, intentionality and instrumentality, contingency, Husserl, Heidegger, Harman, Meyasu.

Acknowledgements. The research was supported by RSF No. 24-28-01014, https://rscf.ru/en/project/24-28-01014/.

Cite as: Kukel, V. E. (2025) [Algorithm reality – intentionality and instrumentality]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 3, pp. 141–148. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2025-3-141.


References

  1. Brouwer, L. E. J. (2011) [Intuitionism and formalism]. Metafizika. Vek XXI [Metaphysics. 21st Century]. Vol. 4, Moscow: Binom. pp. 149–163. (In Russ.).
  2. Heyting, A. (1965) Intuitsionizm: vvedenie [Intuitionism: An Introduction]. Moscow: Mir, 202 p.
  3. Husserl, E. (2018) Ideya fenomenologii. Pyat lektsiy [The Idea of Phenomenology: Five Lectures]. St. Petersburg: Humanitarian Academy, 110 p.
  4. Kleene, S. C. (2009) Vvedeniye v metamatematiku [Introduction to Metamathematics]. Moscow: Librokom, 526 p.
  5. Kolmogorov, A. N. (1925) [On the principle of tertium non datur]. Matematicheskiy sbornik [Mathematical Collection]. Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 646–667. (In Russ.).
  6. Kutyrev, V. A. (2018) [Speculative realism as a philosophy of the facticity of the beginning of the end of the human (world)]. Filosofiya i kultura [Philosophy and Culture]. Vol. 10, pp. 8–17. – https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0757.2018.10.27939. (In Russ.).
  7. Ladov, V. A., Enns, I. A. (2012) [Analytic definition of number, Russell’s paradox, and type theory]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya [Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Philosophy. Sociology. Political Science]. Vol. 2(18), pp. 13–20. (In Russ.).
  8. Markov, A. A. (1954) Teoriya algorifmov [Theory of Algorithms]. Moscow-Leningrad: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 376 p.
  9. Meillassoux, Q. (2015) Posle konechnosti: esse o neobkhodimosti kontingentnosti [After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency]. 1st ed. Yekaterinburg: armchair scientist, 196 p. (In Russ.).
  10. Serkova, V. A. (2010) Fenomenologiya kultury [Phenomenology of Culture]. 1st ed. St. Petersburg: Publishing house of Polytechnic university, 137 p. (In Russ.).
  11. Tulchinskii, G. L. (2013) [Rationality and non-rationality of responsibility]. Ratsionalnost i kultura. K yubileyu Vladimira Natonovicha Porusa [Rationality and Culture. On the Anniversary of Vladimir Natanovich Porus]. St. Petersburg: Aleteyya, pp. 121–136. (In Russ.).
  12. Heidegger, M. (1997) Bytiye i vremya [Being and Time]. Moscow: Ad Marginem, 452 p.
  13. Harman, G. (2012) [On vicarious causation]. Novoye literaturnoye obozreniye [New Literary Review]. No. 2 (114), pp. 75–90. (In Russ.).
  14. Harman, G. (2019) [The horror of phenomenology: Lovecraft and Husserl]. Logos [Logos]. Vol. 29, No. 5 (132), pp. 177–202. – https://doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2019-5-177-200. (In Russ.).
  15. Tselishchev, V. V. (2008) Tezis Chercha [Church’s Thesis]. Novosibirsk: Parallel, 172 p.
  16. Alaghi, A., Qian, W., Hayes, J. (2018) The Promise and Challenge of Stochastic Computing. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems. Vol. 37, No. 8, pp. 1515–1531. (In Eng.).
  17. Katsnelson, M., Vanchurin, V. (2021) Emergent Quantumness in Neural Networks. Foundations of Physics. Vol. 51, No. 94, pp. 1–20. (In Eng.).
  18. Kubaychuk, O., Sai, D. (2024) Randomized algorithms in systems without coordination and centralization. Collection «Information Technology and Security». Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 80–90. – https://doi.org/10.20535/2411-1031.2024.12.1.306274. (In Eng.).
  19. Marcus, G. (2018) Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal. ArXiv. – https://doi.org/10/48550/arXiv.1801.00631. (In Eng.).
  20. Niederreiter, H. (2006) Probability and computing: randomized algorithms and probabilistic analysis. Mathematics of Computation. Vol. 75, pp. 1595–1597. (In Eng.).
  21. Singh, V., Dubey, S., Ahmad, E. (2024) Visualizing Algorithms in the Field of Education: A Comprehensive Review. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology. Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 1670– 1675. – https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2024.58613. (In Eng.).
Error