> On 28 Jan 2005 Hal Finney wrote:
> >I suggest that the answer is that accidental instantiations only
> >contribute an infinitesimal amount, compared to the contributions of
> >universes like ours.
Stathis Papaioannou replied:
> I don't understand this conclusion. A lengthy piece of code (whether it
> represents a moment of consciousness or anything else) is certainly less
> likely to be accidentally implemented on some random computer than on the
> computer running the original software. But surely the opposite is the case
> if you allow that all possible computer programs "run" simply by virtue of
> their existence as mathematical objects. For every program running on a
> biological or electronic computer, there must be infinitely many exact
> analogues and every minor and major variation thereof running out there in
I'm afraid I don't understand your argument here. I am using the
Schmidhuber concept that the measure of a program is related to its size
and/or information complexity: that shorter (and simpler) programs have
greater measure than longer ones. Do you agree with that, or are you
challenging that view?
My point was then that we can imagine a short program that can "naturally"
evolve consciousness, whereas to create consciousness "artificially"
or arbitrarily, without a course of natural evolution, requires a huge
number of bits to specify the conscious entity in its entirety.
You mention infinity; are you saying that there is no meaningful
difference between the measure of programs, because each one has an
infinite number of analogs? Could you explain that concept in more