3 ms·

So, did anyone here actually read the book? I’m halfway through and I think there are compelling ideas around how self-replication emerges naturally from a fund

So, did anyone here actually read the book? I’m halfway through and I think there are compelling ideas around how self-replication emerges naturally from a fundamentally computational universe and how that leads to increasingly complex computation (and ultimately “intelligence”). The book definitely has Wolfram vibes but it’s thought provoking to draw a connecting line through many domains like the author does. It’s best treated as pop-sci, like most of the AI literature.

r0ze-at-hn 1y ago
I read the whole book. Sure an editor could have tightened it up, but it was an enjoyable tour of so many topics that I enjoy. So often I will read a paper or book on just one of the topics, seeing so many of them together was fun and made me think about how they all intertwine more. I have studied biology, physics, computer science and finance so I love bouncing across them. It explores defining life and then intelligence and while I might have a similar, but slightly different definition of intelligence personally I loved comparing them. There was a concept buried in it that before a system evolves replication it first will learn how to copy badly, then better, then replicate. This might feel a minor and obvious statement, but I have never seen it called out before and it is a concept I have discussed many times with people since. Some obvious things such as if I want a system to obtain replication my initial selection filter should be for copying. I am able to induce replication in a system for less input energy via this process. But this can also be flipped around and being hyper aware of systems that are copying badly knowing they are much more likely to phase shift to full replication shortly. I see this everywhere from ideas, startups, and even in finance. And to nerd snipe everyone here, I spotted a bug in the brainfuck which is still on the online copy, can you find it?
fellowniusmonk 1y ago
I don't really concern myself with consciousness or intelligence. It seems to me as a mereological nihilist that meaning primitives are state changes. The existence of syntatic meaning depends on state changes. The existence of semantic meaning depends on syntax. The existence of complex meaning generators like humans is dependent on less complex meaning in DNA and RNA. We are meaning generators, we are the empirical generators of the most complex observed meaning and you can follow the causal chain all the way to state change. I don't know if the universe has an ultimate meaning, but I suspect that if we don't wipe ourselves out we'd be part of the causual chain that creates and/or discovers it. All the particles and information is all tied to the systems/universes entropy so there is a timer on how long we have, but in the meantime. We emit meaning like stars emit photons. We are the complex meaning generators of the universe. Maybe there are others out there but we haven't met them yet, and until we do we should take precaution.

r0ze-at-hn 1y ago

I read the whole book. Sure an editor could have tightened it up, but it was an enjoyable tour of so many topics that I enjoy. So often I will read a paper or book on just one of the topics, seeing so many of them together was fun and made me think about how they all intertwine more. I have studied biology, physics, computer science and finance so I love bouncing across them. It explores defining life and then intelligence and while I might have a similar, but slightly different definition of intelligence personally I loved comparing them. There was a concept buried in it that before a system evolves replication it first will learn how to copy badly, then better, then replicate. This might feel a minor and obvious statement, but I have never seen it called out before and it is a concept I have discussed many times with people since. Some obvious things such as if I want a system to obtain replication my initial selection filter should be for copying. I am able to induce replication in a system for less input energy via this process. But this can also be flipped around and being hyper aware of systems that are copying badly knowing they are much more likely to phase shift to full replication shortly. I see this everywhere from ideas, startups, and even in finance. And to nerd snipe everyone here, I spotted a bug in the brainfuck which is still on the online copy, can you find it?

fellowniusmonk 1y ago

I don't really concern myself with consciousness or intelligence. It seems to me as a mereological nihilist that meaning primitives are state changes. The existence of syntatic meaning depends on state changes. The existence of semantic meaning depends on syntax. The existence of complex meaning generators like humans is dependent on less complex meaning in DNA and RNA. We are meaning generators, we are the empirical generators of the most complex observed meaning and you can follow the causal chain all the way to state change. I don't know if the universe has an ultimate meaning, but I suspect that if we don't wipe ourselves out we'd be part of the causual chain that creates and/or discovers it. All the particles and information is all tied to the systems/universes entropy so there is a timer on how long we have, but in the meantime. We emit meaning like stars emit photons. We are the complex meaning generators of the universe. Maybe there are others out there but we haven't met them yet, and until we do we should take precaution.