On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:48:48PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> (c) A random string of binary code is run on a computer. There exists a 
> programming language which, when a program is written in this language so 
> that it is the same program as in (a) and (b), then compiled, the binary 
> code so produced is the same as this random string.
> Is this nonsense? Is (c) fundamentally different from (b)? If not, doesn't 
> it mean that any random string implements any program? We might not know 
> what it says, but if the program is self-aware, then by definition *it* 
> knows.

The space of all binary strings is vastly larger than the space of strings
constituting a valid program, and the space of "aware" (AI) programs is again
a tiny subset. It's a pretty sterile (and very rugged) fitness landscape.

The probability of finding a nontrivial program by pure chance is about the
same as a pebble in Gobi hopping through a fluke in Brownian noise.

(More abstract machines can be more forgiving, in regards of what is

Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a>
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to