On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:55:59AM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> On 14.10.2012 01:46 Russell Standish said the following:
> >On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 12:16:06PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> >>Another question here would be who will divide the state space to
> >>a bacterium and environment. Let us imagine that we have
> >>implemented somehow a bacterium in Game of Life (or even better in
> >>Continuous Game of Life). What is meaning of "A bacterium travels"
> >>when there is no human observer?
> >>
> >>Or let me can put it this way. To find out whether a bacterium is
> >>there and to find out its coordinates, one could imagine an extra
> >>algorithms that analyses the state space of for example Continuous
> >>Game of Life. Now we run two different simulations.
> >>
> >>1) Continuous Game of Life as it is.
> >>
> >>2) Continuous Game of Life with an extra algorithm to find out if
> >>a bacterium is there and to report coordinates of the bacterium.
> >>
> >>Is there any difference between 1) and 2)?
> >>
> >
> >A very pertinent question. I wish I knew the answer (myself and many
> >others too!).
> >
> >There is a sort of proto-answer in the work of Jim Crutchfield. It
> >is possible (sort of) to come up with a workable definition of
> >emergence that doesn't require the presence of an observer (or rather
> >he has a metric to indicate what sorts of things are likely to be
> >interesting to an abstract observer - my emphasis).
> >
> 
> Do you know some papers/books that discuss this question in depth?

Not so much. I have some speculative remarks along these lines towards
the of my 2000 paper "Evolution in the Multiverse".

Also implicit in my view of complexity as information outlined in my
2001 paper "Complexity and Emergence", and also in the more pragmatic
2003 paper "Open-ended artificial evolution", is that the question of
generating an "observer" endemic to the system become crucial. But I
haven't written about it - its more as embryonic thought at this
stage. As I mention, Jim Crutchfield has taken a hard-nosed
objectivist approach to emergence, which I think must contain a kernel
of what is required to do this.

I'm not sure which of Jim's paper to recommend, but perhaps:

J. P. Crutchfield and M. Mitchell, The evolution of emergent
computation, PNAS November 7, 1995 vol. 92 no. 23 10742-10746.

or maybe J. P. Crutchfield (1994) Physica D, 75, 11-54.


Of more recent papers, I was particularly impressed by Anil Seth
(2010), Artificial Life 16, 179-196.

Cheers

> 
> I have taken this idea from
> 
> Raymond Tallis, Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the
> Misrepresentation of Humanity
> 
> where it was expressed just in a general manner.
> 
> Doesn't this mean, that simulations kind of 1) are dead ends?
> 
> Evgenii
> -- 
> http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/10/aping-mankind.html
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to