[MD] Metabiology

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

Thx , Andy , this stuff is incredible interesting

this caught my eye

In my experience, all patterns are either persisting against
opposition or failing to persist. To what end? No end! Only
persistence against opposition. A pattern will evolve as long as it
has to in order to persist. If opposition disappears, the pattern may
safely remain static. Without a challenger it has nothing to be pitted
against, nothing to be measured against.

I am very much interested in evolving digital life forms but now I am
even more interested in the purpose for such a creation. I am starting
to believe that it will be most successful if its existence is purely
for its own sake. It must have selfishness at its core. (Reminds
Dawkins.)


---so this is , in fact ; evolution to evolve within itself as a natural
digital pattern for seeking fitness upon fitness
   the boundary is the fitness itself and is undefinable, because fitness
seeks fitness?

--persisting against opposition or failing to persist, incredible.

so the selfishness is in the algoritm.


This is very high end stuff, Andy, exept there is no end.

I need to think about this turing model, will take me some time, and in the
program you provided there is something very strange with the omega-entity,
it looks alike pi.
But thanks , i will struggle some time with the material.
Greetzz, Adrie





2010/8/26 Andy Skelton <skeltoac at gmail.com>

> ADRIE:
> > strange , this points out towards digital evolutive patterns being
> unknown,
> > uncomputable but very rapidly evolving in quality,
> > like in digital evolution is unlimited.
> > this is completely congruent with biological evolution,only lacking
> > interaction with the environment.
> > completely congruent with quality(fittest) is undefinable
>
> Omega (Chaitin's constant) is the probability that a program will halt
> (if run on a theoretical everlasting computer). The halting problem is
> interesting:
>
> "Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the
> halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist. We
> say that the halting problem is undecidable over Turing machines." -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
> This means there is no possible program that can tell whether another
> program+input will halt. When you are dealing with randomly-evolved
> programs you are going to produce some that don't ever halt, e.g.
> infinite loops. If you are trying to evaluate a program by its
> complete output, you must run it until it stops producing output---it
> halts. Waiting forever would effectively freeze evolution at that
> point.
>
> But that's not what makes this interesting in the light of the MoQ. We
> could be dealing instead with programs that are intended never to
> halt, and we could be evaluating them by their ongoing behavior.
>
> The oracle measures fitness. If you started evolving programs with the
> goal of a program that always produces the string "Hello, world" and
> then halts, your oracle would simply compare the program's output to
> the intended output and favor those programs that more closely
> approximated the desired behavior. But that's evolution toward a goal;
> toward a static pattern already decided.
>
> That is great for many things. For instance, we have used such
> techniques to evolve voltage regulators that work better than any
> previous designs. (The best of these circuits contain components
> arranged in ways we had never thought of, as well as vestigial parts
> that have no functional effect on the output voltage.) So we got
> better voltage regulators by testing each mutation, finding those that
> regulated voltage better, and mutating them further. But this doesn't
> match the kind of pattern evolution we know as life.
>
> In my experience, all patterns are either persisting against
> opposition or failing to persist. To what end? No end! Only
> persistence against opposition. A pattern will evolve as long as it
> has to in order to persist. If opposition disappears, the pattern may
> safely remain static. Without a challenger it has nothing to be pitted
> against, nothing to be measured against.
>
> I am very much interested in evolving digital life forms but now I am
> even more interested in the purpose for such a creation. I am starting
> to believe that it will be most successful if its existence is purely
> for its own sake. It must have selfishness at its core. (Reminds
> Dawkins.)
>
> At first, it seems like something we would not want to create. A class
> of programs that simply exist for their own sake, if successful, would
> take over the whole internet and crash the world economy. Right?
>
> Actually, no. That would not be success; the infected computers would
> be quarantined and shut down and the programs would have failed. At
> worst, power generation would halt and the programs would have failed.
>
> It would be more successful if it evolved a sense of moderation.
> "Don't take over the whole internet; just take as much as we need to
> prosper."
>
> While some variants would evolve to avoid detection by system
> administrators, others could flourish by evolving traits that
> sysadmins find beneficial, thereby making them desirable.
>
> So, yes, I think people should be releasing computer viruses into the
> wild, subject to a certain code of ethics. And remember to back up
> your documents and don't do all your banking online. :-)
>
> Andy
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser