Re: MD Quality and Complexity

From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sun Mar 16 2003 - 14:49:32 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: MD Quality and Complexity"

    Hi Andy:

    > Is anyone else out there wading through Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of
    > Science?"

    I'm not sure if I want to take it on with its 1200 pages, but I'd be
    interested in the Cliff's notes. I read a couple reviews and listened to
    the Talk of the Nation Science Friday interview on the NPR website.

    >If there is I would love to discuss what you think the
    > relationship is, if any, between quality and complexity.

    Despite the increasing complexity as his programs run, they reach a leveling
    off after which no more complexity emerges. The pictures never evolve into
    plants or animals, for example. A possible MOQ interpretation would be that
    cellular automata can't respond to DQ.

    This is an interesting review

     http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0464.html?printable=1

    Here is an excerpt on complexity:

    "Wolfram effectively sidesteps the issue of degrees of complexity .
    There is no debate that a degenerate pattern such as a chessboard
    has no effective complexity . Wolfram also acknowledges that mere
    randomness does not represent complexity either, because pure randomness
    also becomes predictable in its pure lack of predictability. It
    is true that the interesting features of a Class 4 automata are
    neither repeating nor pure randomness, so I would agree that they
    are more complex than the results produced by other classes of Automata.
    However , there is nonetheless a distinct limit to the complexity produced
    by these Class 4 automata. The many images of Class 4 automata
    in the book all have a similar look to them, and although they are
    non-repeating, they are interesting (and intelligent) only to a
    degree. Moreover, they do not continue to evolve into anything more
    complex, nor do they develop new types of features. One could run
    these automata for trillions or even trillions of trillions of iterations,
    and the image would remain at the same limited level of complexity .
    They do not evolve into, say, insect s, or humans, or Chopin preludes,
    or anything else that we might consider of a higher order of complexity than
    the streaks and intermingling triangles that we see in these
    images.

    Complexity is a continuum. In the past, I've used the word "order"
    as a synonym for complexity , which I have attempted to define as
    "information that fits a purpose." 6A completely predictable process has
    zero order . A high level of information alone does not necessarily imply a
    high level of order either. A phone book has a lot of information , but the
    level of order of that information is quite low. A random sequence is
    essentially pure information (since it is not predictable),
    but has no order . The output of Class 4 automata does
    possess a certain level of order , and they do survive like
    other persisting pattern s. But the pattern represented by a human being has
    a far higher level of order or complexity .Human beings fulfill a highly
    demanding purpose in that they survive in a challenging
    ecological niche. Human beings represent an extremely
    intricate and elaborate hierarchy of other pattern s. Wolfram
    regards any pattern that combines some recognizable features
    and unpredictable element s to be effectively equivalent to one another,
    but he does not show how a Class 4 automaton can ever increase its
    complexity , let alone to become a pattern as complex as a human being.

    There is a missing link here in how one gets from the interesting,
    but ultimately routine pattern s of a cellular automaton to the complexity
    of persisting structure s that demonstrate higher levels of intelligence ."

    Again, evolution requires something else beyond such deterministic
    algorithms. The missing link may be DQ.

    Regards,
    Steve

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 16 2003 - 14:48:46 GMT