Comments on: Open problems in metabiology. (We are all random walks in program space.) http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2009/10/04/open-problems-in-metabiology-we-are-all-random-walks-in-program-space/ EBB is the ebiquity research group\\\'s blog at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC). We focus on technologies that facilitate the design, implementation and control of distributed, intelligent information systems -- mobile and pervasive computing, ad hoc networking, multiagent systems, knowledge representation and reasoning, and the semantic web. As the tides of technology ebb and flow, we hope the good ideas wash up on our beach and the bad ones drift back out to sea. Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:29:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Stephen Harris http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2009/10/04/open-problems-in-metabiology-we-are-all-random-walks-in-program-space/comment-page-1/#comment-40819 Stephen Harris Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:45:30 +0000 http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/?p=2500#comment-40819 I find your new project very interesting and timely! Your friend Marvin Minsky once wrote about the possibility of simulating intelligence by running a program that began evolved life from the start. The paper is called Neat vs. Scruffy. He said that such an approach would be hugely intractable because of the huge number of random variables plus the many different ways those random events could sequence. I find your idea interesting because although Creationism is implausible, the theory of evolution also has gaps in it. I don't know if they can all be attributed to what Gould called punctuated equilibrium. Here is something which I suspect may be true. That randomness may be become indistinguishable from a sufficiently complex pattern with rules, so that one can't tell if there is intelligent design or God does play dice with the universe. Remember those rules that come in threes, Asimov and/or Clarke, Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three "laws" of prediction: 1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong. 2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible 3)Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ;-) Best Regards, Stephen I find your new project very interesting and timely!
Your friend Marvin Minsky once wrote about the
possibility of simulating intelligence by running a
program that began evolved life from the start. The
paper is called Neat vs. Scruffy. He said that such
an approach would be hugely intractable because of
the huge number of random variables plus the many
different ways those random events could sequence.

I find your idea interesting because although Creationism
is implausible, the theory of evolution also has gaps in it.
I don’t know if they can all be attributed to what Gould
called punctuated equilibrium. Here is something which I
suspect may be true. That randomness may be become
indistinguishable from a sufficiently complex pattern with
rules, so that one can’t tell if there is intelligent design or
God does play dice with the universe. Remember those
rules that come in threes, Asimov and/or Clarke,

Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three “laws” of prediction:

1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something
is impossible, he is probably wrong.

2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture
a little way past them into the impossible

3)Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ;-)

Best Regards,
Stephen

]]> By: Gregory Chaitin http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2009/10/04/open-problems-in-metabiology-we-are-all-random-walks-in-program-space/comment-page-1/#comment-40054 Gregory Chaitin Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:59:15 +0000 http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/?p=2500#comment-40054 Joel, loved your remark that "We are all random walks in program space." Thought you might care to know that metabiology is progressing and I can now prove a lot more. You can find the latest on this in my paper "To a mathematical theory of evolution and biological creativity" at this URL: http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/darwin.pdf Joel, loved your remark that “We are all random walks in program space.” Thought you might care to know that metabiology is progressing and I can
now prove a lot more. You can find the latest on this in my paper
“To a mathematical theory of evolution and biological creativity” at this URL:

http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/darwin.pdf

]]>