benelliott comments on Fine-tuned for Interestingness vs. Ramsey's Theorem - Less Wrong

0 Post author: Alexandros 16 May 2011 05:07PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (18)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: benelliott 17 May 2011 09:39:42AM *  1 point [-]

We have never discovered a self-replicating pattern in a random life-field. I once saw a calculation that showed you would need a computer with the volume within a few orders of magnitude of the solar system to do so (not mass, volume). All the ones we have are intentionally constructed.

Most theoretical work done on self-replicators in life works by assuming ultra-low density fields, maybe one live cell per billion at the start (a proportion which immediately plummets much lower owing to the fact that cells need 2 neighbours to survive) so the empty space rule will probably be similar. Even if you use a higher density, most of the space will end up filled with the same mixture of small scale still-lifes, oscillators and high entropy regions, busy but not interesting. Much like most of the empty space in our universe still mostly contains background radiations (I think).

As for the fields I looked at, in general it was quite easy to prove mathematically that they were uninteresting. Interestingness requires a mixture of stability and complexity which even the ones where I couldn't manage a proof lack.

Comment author: MrMind 17 May 2011 12:41:09PM *  1 point [-]

We have never discovered a self-replicating pattern in a random life-field. I once saw > a calculation that showed you would need a computer with the volume within a few orders of magnitude of the solar system to do so (not mass, volume). All the ones we have are intentionally constructed.

Well, per Bekenstein bound, an apple gets approximately 10^41 bits, so I think our universe really has no problem in allocating space for computational resources.