34 ms·

"Anybody who looks at living organisms knows perfectly well that they can produce other organisms like themselves. This is their normal function, they wouldn’t

"Anybody who looks at living organisms knows perfectly well that they can produce other organisms like themselves. This is their normal function, they wouldn’t exist if they didn’t do this, and it’s not plausible that this is the reason why they abound in the world. In other words, living organisms are very complicated aggregations of elementary parts, and by any reasonable theory of probability or thermodynamics highly improbable. That they should occur in the world at all is a miracle of the first magnitude; the only thing which removes, or mitigates, this miracle is that they reproduce themselves. Therefore, if by any peculiar accident there should ever be one of them, from there on the rules of probability do not apply, and there will be many of them, at least if the milieu is reasonable. But a reasonable milieu is already a thermodynamically much less improbable thing. So, the operations of probability somehow leave a loophole at this point, and it is by the process of self-reproduction that they are pierced." — John von Neumann

ekianjo 6y ago
> Therefore, if by any peculiar accident there should ever be one of them, from there on the rules of probability do not apply, and there will be many of them, at least if the milieu is reasonable. This is the line of arguments in favor of the "simulation theory": "If in a distance future a civilization ever manages to create a simulation, who says we are not already into one of them?"
iandanforth 6y ago
In this I disagree with von Neumann. The relevant phrase to understand my point of departure is "That which persists exists." There is a continuum of strategies for persistence and reproduction is only one of them. While thermodynamics over a large enough timescale dictates even disorder, over shorter timescales and in specific local it allows for the temporary increase in order. This is no more or less probable than any other arrangement. What's fundamentally fascinating is that there are forces which resist change. It is that resistance to change on the small scale that allows for the persistence of patterns on the large scale. Atoms resist change, persist and thus continue to exist. Molecules resist change. Crystal structures. Arrangements of molecules into cells. The patterns of behavior in individuals. There are layers upon layers of this same phenomenon of the ability to resist change via different strategies and inherent properties. Locally this means that there is an anti-entropic tendency built into the fabric of, and all subsequent layers or organization in the universe. It's bloody wonderful, but hardly improbable.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCpLWbHVNhk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCpLWbHVNhk
- kaba0 6y ago
  I am by no means knowledgeable enough on this topic, but what we think of as increased order may not always equate to physically having larger order. Eg. your atom/molecule example, it may only be more orderly to a human brain, when in actuality the added entropy of the tight packing is overcome by the favorable energy state at the temperatures we are used to. So there may be a difference in a fixed order by energy expenditure like a cell (Neumann’s point) and seemingly ordered state that in physical actuality requires no additional energy like a salt crystal (your point). With this (maybe faulty) distinction, Neumann’s point still stands in my reading. If we were to have an immortal supercell that didn’t reproduce, it would likely seize to exist at an “infinite” timeline due to some rare external event, even if it is superior in every way to a simple cell that only reproduces. While at the other hand a “single” crystal will similarly not survive a long timeline, but by simply its structure being a law of nature, it will form again in the same way.

ekianjo 6y ago

> Therefore, if by any peculiar accident there should ever be one of them, from there on the rules of probability do not apply, and there will be many of them, at least if the milieu is reasonable. This is the line of arguments in favor of the "simulation theory": "If in a distance future a civilization ever manages to create a simulation, who says we are not already into one of them?"

iandanforth 6y ago

In this I disagree with von Neumann. The relevant phrase to understand my point of departure is "That which persists exists." There is a continuum of strategies for persistence and reproduction is only one of them. While thermodynamics over a large enough timescale dictates even disorder, over shorter timescales and in specific local it allows for the temporary increase in order. This is no more or less probable than any other arrangement. What's fundamentally fascinating is that there are forces which resist change. It is that resistance to change on the small scale that allows for the persistence of patterns on the large scale. Atoms resist change, persist and thus continue to exist. Molecules resist change. Crystal structures. Arrangements of molecules into cells. The patterns of behavior in individuals. There are layers upon layers of this same phenomenon of the ability to resist change via different strategies and inherent properties. Locally this means that there is an anti-entropic tendency built into the fabric of, and all subsequent layers or organization in the universe. It's bloody wonderful, but hardly improbable.

wombatmobile 6y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCpLWbHVNhk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCpLWbHVNhk
kaba0 6y ago
I am by no means knowledgeable enough on this topic, but what we think of as increased order may not always equate to physically having larger order. Eg. your atom/molecule example, it may only be more orderly to a human brain, when in actuality the added entropy of the tight packing is overcome by the favorable energy state at the temperatures we are used to. So there may be a difference in a fixed order by energy expenditure like a cell (Neumann’s point) and seemingly ordered state that in physical actuality requires no additional energy like a salt crystal (your point). With this (maybe faulty) distinction, Neumann’s point still stands in my reading. If we were to have an immortal supercell that didn’t reproduce, it would likely seize to exist at an “infinite” timeline due to some rare external event, even if it is superior in every way to a simple cell that only reproduces. While at the other hand a “single” crystal will similarly not survive a long timeline, but by simply its structure being a law of nature, it will form again in the same way.