Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 11:19:50 AM, Brad Wyble wrote: CS> So what I've been picturing is that organisms, in evolving, are CS> "absorbing" complexity from the Universe around them. And although I CS> used to think evolution always strives for more complexity, lately I CS> see this a bit differently...
BW> On what basis would you make this point about absorbing complexity BW> from the universe? We get energy, and that's about it. The rest BW> of the input is, at best, the visual movement of the planets, BW> stars, and sun, which isn't that much information. It's not a firm conclusion, but I'm basing it on information / complexity theory. This relates, in certain ways, to ideas about entropy -- and energy is negentropy. I.e. without the sun's input we would be nothing. I'm not convinced of this idea on an intuitive basis, but rather on a mathematical basis -- that is, the mathematical idea that complexity cannot be "freely produced". You cannot get truly random numbers out of a fixed process would be another way to state this. I also wonder if AGI's could really be trained in a simulated micro- environment...perhaps the real universe's "randomness" is *necessary* for development of intelligence. BW> The other place complexity can be found is in the scale of matter. BW> Evolution has plumbed them depths of molecular mechanics very BW> effectively, but it's still a closed, static system. BW> The real impetus of evolution is co-evolution, competition between BW> candidate lifeforms. This keeps the fitness landscape changing BW> all the time, and usually incrementing the complexity of the BW> system. Well, that's what I'm wondering about. Does co-evolution increase the total complexity (in a mathematical, Kolmogorov sense) or does it *mirror* or *absorb* complexity. Lately, I suspect the latter -- you cannot really increase it, you can only reflect it. -- Cliff ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
