5 ms·
We didn't encounter it by chance though; we encountered it by complex goal-directed physical processes that are known to produce extremely high distictiveness-t
by a1369209993 9y ago
We didn't encounter it by chance though; we encountered it by complex goal-directed physical processes that are known to produce extremely high distictiveness-to-kolmogorov-probability outputs.
- Someone 9y agoBut chance ‘built’ the machine that built the machine that… …that built the machine that can run such complex goal-directed processes.
- lisper 9y agoNo. Chance + selection. VERY important difference.
- SisypheanLife 9y agoIs selection here not a byproduct of chance?
- lisper 9y agoNo. The root of all selection is selection for reproductive fitness. That is decidedly non-random.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mannykannot 9y agoThere is no selection for reproductive fitness until there is a replicator. Once a random process has stumbled upon a replicator, selection for reproductive fitness is inevitable, so long as some of the replicator's descendants survive. Reproductive fitness, therefore, is a feature of sufficiently large, complex and long-running random processes, not something additional that is imposed from outside. This is what Dennett called "Darwin's dangerous idea".
- lisper 9y agoNo. The "dangerous idea" is that design might not require a designer. As for the first replicator, we simply do not yet know how (or even when) that came about, though random chance does seem likely. So I guess if you add enough layers of "built the machine that..." then you do end up with pure randomness (probably). But I would conjecture that there's a lot less "informational distance" between the cosmos and the first replicator than there is between the first replicator and Adam Yedidia.
- mannykannot 9y agoIt might not be what Dennett meant, but I don't think issues of informational distance refute the claim that we can expect selection for reproductive fitness to be a feature in any random process that gives rise to replicators. After the appearance of the replicator, the random process continues to operate under the same rules (laws of physics) as before.
- lisper 9y agoOh, I certainly agree with that.
- a1369209993 9y agoAfter the appearance (and sufficent success) of the replicator, it stops being a random process. Edit: or at least not a completely/primarily random process.
- dfee 9y agoEtymological arguments for either position. Regardless, I wouldn’t claim the distinction exists, and would find it hard to justify that it’s VERY important.
- stan_rogers 9y agoIt's the difference between draw poker and a fresh hand every time.
- nmg 9y agoIf I aim a gun and pull the trigger, the results are not the byproduct of chance, excepting that in some sense everything is. This was consciously aiming a gun at an explicitly-named remote target, ricocheting the bullet off an unprecedentedly-reasonable number of explicitly-chosen elements, and hitting the target. Don't let semantics muddy the water about this achievement
- PurpleBoxDragon 9y agoI think the selection is a byproduct of the underlying laws, thought one must rely on chance until a system complicated enough to engage in selection emerges. Now, are those underlying laws reliant upon chance? This requires understanding beyond that of the current universe, so maybe.
- contourtrails 9y agoIt's not really that way. The universe has produced things that basically must exist given the laws of physics (when certain chemicals exist together under certain conditions we know they will react in certain ways, etc). We are one of those things, and the things we make are things that we are compelled to make by our very nature. So it's not chance. Our universe as constructed necessarily gives rise to the things we see and experience.
- lallysingh 9y agoSo the universe is deterministic and nothing happens by chance? I think this is essentially arguing definitions of terms.
- pdpi 9y agoIt's more akin to arguing for the anthropic principle.
- gradys 9y agoIt doesn't need to be deterministic, it just needs to be biased.
- contourtrails 9y agoI'm not arguing about anything, I'm just stating facts
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- baddox 9y agoI think it's clear that the author is simply referring to the odds of finding this program by trying random programs one after the other, not making any philosophical claims about whether the Universe is deterministic.
- lokedhs 9y agoIt's random, but the probability distribution is not uniform. Just because you have a random process choosing between outcomes A and B doesn't mean that there is a 50/50 chance you'll see either outcome. For a related interesting result relating to this see the recent paper where they analysed the Drake equation using probability distributions.
- naasking 9y ago> But chance ‘built’ the machine that built the machine that… Or perhaps this consists of (slight) evidence that favourable conditions for the evolution of intelligence are more common than we currently suspect.
- graycat 9y agoIMHO Amazing: There's a boy in his room playing with his relatively large computer. He dreams up quantum mechanics and general relativity, types in the equations, clicks on the push button Big Bang, zooms forward 12 billion years of simulated time, and sees what he gets. This was not his first try. His other efforts all ended in "Poof". But this effort yielded life that figured out the equations! So, the equations generated life smart enough to figure out the equations. So, the equations were both (1) general enough to generate life and (2) simple enough that the generated life could figure out the equations. IMHO, amazing juxtaposition! Is this set of equations essentially the only possible set of equations with both (1) and (2)?
- sullyj3 9y agoThe universe doesn't try random states sequentially, it's governed by things like gravity that tend to lead to states where the forming of optimization processes is possible
- gowld 9y agoIt depends if you believe in free will, or if you think we are just entropic particles and waves. The more precise statement is that you'd never encounter this number by uniform sampling within the range of objects of (some reasonable choice of finite size)
- burke 9y agoNo, it doesn't. "Random chance" in this context clearly implies the exclusion of goal-oriented interference from intelligent entities, whether you ascribe any special mystical meaning to "intelligence" or not.
- michaelsbradley 9y agoAt an observation scale of, say, our local supercluster, could the electromechanical activity of the processes employed be distinguishable from random physical processes throughout the rest of the observable universe? Honest question, if the question makes sense. If not distinguishable, then perhaps the parent of your comment has a good point.
- landryraccoon 9y agoIf a machine arises by chance that creates that goal directed process, that doesn’t seem any less interesting to me than if the output arose by chance instead. In some ways, it seems even more remarkable.
- coldtea 9y ago>we encountered it by complex goal-directed physical processes If you mean evolution, yes. But nothing about the big bang for example makes it a "goal directed process". (In fact even evolution only looks that way from hindsight -- there's not some end goal there either).
- a1369209993 9y agoAcually, the primary complex goal-directed physical process I was talking about was Scott Aaronson. Also various other mathematicians, and mathematics/mathematical research collectively. Evolution is goal directed with regard to locally maximizing inclusive reproductive fitness, but it's not particularly involved by this point.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- osteele 9y agoI'll play! This distinction, between chance and goal-directed physical processes, is artificial, though. It's artificial because it was produced by humans. :-)
- makomk 9y agoUltimately, the thing that makes the complex goal-directed physical processes which make up life on this planet actually work is the inexorable, unavoidable increase of entropy. In some sense, living organisms are just a lucky arrangement that happen to make the direction in which entropy increases the one where life thrives, reproduces and grows in complexity. So I guess on some level maybe this is all the result of chance?