Re: Delicate complexity? (was: RE: computronium prime-oxide_

From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Sun Nov 22 1998 - 16:51:34 MST


In a message dated 11/22/98 4:34:33 PM, Nick Bostrom wrote:

>Hal Finney wrote:
>
>> they ran into balancing problems, where trivial
>> strategies would dominate (often a problem with alife simulations).
>> At last report they were introducing various ad hoc rules and limitations
>> to try to get robust evolutionary behavior.
>
>At this most basic level, complexity or growth in compexity does
>certainly not seem to be the most likely or natural situation. But
>since it's boring (for the human psychology) we change the parameters
>until we get something interesting. I makes me wonder if we may not
>be prone to overestimate the likelihood that the far future will be
>complex.

I expect that it will be complex. Complexity is thermodynamically
favorable - it's simplicity that's hard.

In the wild speculation department, I wonder if part of the reason
that Alife has a problem with trivial strategies arises because
alife doesn't generally try to deal with thermodynamics. Hence
they're not modelling one of the biggest drives to complexity.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:50 MST