NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/origins/14380

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 4.9 KB | 100 lines

Newsgroups: talk.origins
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!tlode
From: [e-mail] (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <ZHLDuB3w165w@kalki33>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 01:54:35 GMT
Lines: 88


kalki33![e-mail]
       (Kalki "That's *Mister* Tapeworm to you" Dasa) writes:

] [e-mail] (trygve lode) writes:
]
] > Howdy, hope the tapeworm is doing well.
]
] What does "the tapeworm" mean in this context?

Well a complete explanation of this incredibly deep and philisophically
important point can be yours by sending a check for a mere $135 to
"The Baklava Institute  3270 Cherryridge Road  Englewood, CO  80110";
be sure to make the check out to "Trygve Lode."

I look forward to receiving your check--unless, of course, you're too
chicken to find out.  <Insert Kalki's previous rendition of barnyard
fowl sound effects for the proper effect here.>

] > Just out of curiousity, are you
] > familliar with a popular computer game called "Life"?  (Basically, it's
] > a very simple cellular automaton "played" on a two-dimensional grid of
] > discrete cells, rather like a large chessboard; in the standard version,
] > the rules are that, if a "living" square has two or three neighbors, it
] > will survive--any more or less, and it will die--and if a "dead" square
] > has exactly three neighbors, it will become "alive" in the following
] > round.  Those are the rules--extremely simple and, since they are also
] > symmetrical and invariant under translation, you can't even argue that
] > information is "added" by the coordinates (a la your argument re fractals).)
]
] The game "life" is not life, that is why you put quotes around "living"
] and "dead".

Yep, it's true--even though the game is called "life" it doesn't
actually involve snuffing out real living creatures on your computer
screen.  Amusingly enough, however, the idea that a sentient lifeform
could actually be made from such a cellular automaton has been brought
up before and was the basis for the book "OX" by Piers Anthony.  (This
is not currently stocked by the Baklava Institute, but if you send me
enough money, I'll look into it.)

]    Actual life displays properties which are not reducible to
] the interactions of elementary physical quantities. The game of "life"
] is entirely reducible to its rules, boundary, and initial conditions.

Well, if you all had said "not easilly reducible," I'd agree--however,
if you're going to maintain that these properties *cannot* be reduced to
the interactions on elementary physical properties, I will ask you all
to provide proof or at least strong evidence for your position.  (Be
sure to provide a model that properly accounts for the effects of brain
injury, surgical procedures such as the severing of the corpus callosum,
and chemicals on personality and memory.)  Hand-waving, misapplication
of incorrect assumptions about unrelated subjects, and requests for
money will not be considered adequate evidence.

] > This is a very simple and easilly demonstrable example that fails to
] > follow your concept of "statistical mechanics"--not only that, it's
] > even an entirely deterministic one; change the rules to probabilistic
] > ones and you'll find that you can generate any desired level of
] > complexity you desire.  Amusingly enough, a moderate-sized grid to
] > use for this game would be 700 units square and would be filled with
] > a very complex pattern within about 400 turns--with whatever arrangement
] > that results having a probability of occuring of around 10e-150000.
]
] In what way does it fail to follow our concept of statistical mechanics?
] As far as we can see, the game of "life" exactly follows the standard
] concepts of statistical mechanics as found in any of the many textbooks
] on the subject. What is your point?

Actually, my point is that it does exactly follow the standard concepts
of statistical mechanics (insofar as they relate to it) found in any of
the many textbooks on the subject--however, it does not follow whatever
it is that you all have been presenting as "statistical mechanics" and
"information theory" and is a simple but effective counterexample to
your thesis that "information is conserved" and that complexity cannot
arise from the action of simple physical laws on simple initial
conditions.

Trygve    (Who is still trying to imagine the consequences of invariance
           under joule*sec/bit transformation.)


        ---------------------------------------------------------
       |  Don't forget to chant:   Dead puppies                  |
       |                           D...D...D...Dead puppies      |
       |                           Dead puppies aren't much fun  |
        ---------------------------------------------------------