Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can the theory of evolution be applied to non-living things?
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 17 of 27 (106007)
05-06-2004 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
05-06-2004 1:19 PM


Re: If an independant observer
If an independant observer could not tell whether what was being observed was real or simulated, is there a difference?
That is a very interesting question, jar. If we could devise an algorithm that changes information via evolutionary principles, and we implemented the algoritm in two different substrata, say a computer and a room full of people with abacusses, then which of the two is a simulation of the other? In such a case, we might not want to speak of a simulation, but rather of a mapping between two congruous processes.

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 05-06-2004 1:19 PM jar has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 18 of 27 (106032)
05-06-2004 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by coffee_addict
05-06-2004 4:20 PM


Re: 2B v ~2B a simulation
Lam, I apologize for giving you the impression that I was belittling you. It was not my intention to do so. But you yourself might want to try to control you emotions a little better. When discussing with Desdamona, your head nearly exploded, you said. I would hate to see the same thing happening here.
I can also say that those beings in your program didn't really express those characteristics, that they were doing what they were programed to do. Mainly, I could say that your artificial lifeforms have simulated characteristics, that they're not really carrying out evolution after all.
I never mentioned ‘beings’ and ‘artificial lifeforms’ in the description of my programme. It deals with information, random mutation of it, and selection of it.
We know that certain natural disasters in nature cause certain natural selection to occur. However, in short of destroying your computer, I fail to see how a natural disaster could affect your simulated lifeforms.
It’s funny that you mention this because a simulated disaster is exactly what I used to overcome the problem of ‘local minima’. A simulated disaster would decimate the population and the local minimum situation would be resolved. We can observe the same phenomenon in biological evolution.
By the way, the phrase "you are mixing levels" is quite annoying.
If you stop doing it, I will not be saying it.
Evolution doesn't deal with information.
Excuse me? Are you serious?
Based on your loose interpretation, I could also claim that evolution can be applied to our social structure, that the poor should all die.
Isn’t that what the poor tend to do, proportionately more so than the rich?
(me [] Real poor quality information has evolved into real high quality information. So my programme is not merely a simulation of an evolution, it is actually carrying one out.
(you It still sounds to me like a simulation demonstrating the effects of evolution.
Can you tell me what a simulation of information looks like? Can you distinguish between a sell-by date and a simulation of a sell-by date?
[regarding memes] This is a different use of the word evolution in a different sense than what we mean by biological evolution.
I’m talking about evolution by random mutation and non-random selection, of which biological evolution is one example, and memetic evolution another.
However, with this reasoning, I can say that the theory of gravity can also be applied to people.
It can. Or do you think that only apples can fall from trees?
We know that 2 objects that have mass are attracted. We also know that 2 people are "attracted" to each other. Therefore, the theory of gravity just applied to the 2 people.
When I’m using the word ‘evolution’, whether applied to genes or memes, I mean exactly the same process in both cases. You, however, are equivocating on the word attracted. That is a fallacy.

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by coffee_addict, posted 05-06-2004 4:20 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 05-06-2004 6:50 PM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 21 by coffee_addict, posted 05-06-2004 9:56 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 19 of 27 (106041)
05-06-2004 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Parasomnium
05-06-2004 6:21 PM


Endless circles
I think you two are going to go around in circles if we don't back up a bit and define "evolution".
That is the point of Para's "levels" observation. If we define 'evolution' as being "...alles... of living things' then of course it can't apply beyond that.
But if we abstract the basic concept to a different "level" then we have something else:
"Evolution is the change in 'specifications' of a population of 'entities' which is capable of imperfect replication under some (perhaps changing) conditions which affect it's success in the number of replicants it may produce."
In this case the 'specifications' are that which controls the form that the 'entities' will take when they are formed through reproduction. The 'entities' are anything which can reproduce under what ever conditions are in place.
With alleles for specificaiton and living things for entities you have biological evolution.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-06-2004 05:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Parasomnium, posted 05-06-2004 6:21 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Parasomnium, posted 05-06-2004 6:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 20 of 27 (106043)
05-06-2004 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NosyNed
05-06-2004 6:50 PM


Re: Endless circles
Thank you, Ned. You said very succinctly what I was trying to get across. Your definition of evolution certainly works for me.

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 05-06-2004 6:50 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Wounded King, posted 05-07-2004 5:20 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 21 of 27 (106093)
05-06-2004 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Parasomnium
05-06-2004 6:21 PM


Cranky mode
Parasomnium writes:
Lam, I apologize for giving you the impression that I was belittling you. It was not my intention to do so. But you yourself might want to try to control you emotions a little better. When discussing with Desdamona, your head nearly exploded, you said. I would hate to see the same thing happening here.
Argument against the person (tu quoque).

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Parasomnium, posted 05-06-2004 6:21 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Parasomnium, posted 05-07-2004 3:00 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 22 of 27 (106184)
05-07-2004 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by coffee_addict
05-06-2004 9:56 PM


Re: Cranky mode
Lam, I apologized. And I said I wouldn't want to see your head explode. I'm trying to be friendly, but you're not being very helpful.
Can we put this to rest?

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by coffee_addict, posted 05-06-2004 9:56 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 23 of 27 (106211)
05-07-2004 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Parasomnium
05-06-2004 6:58 PM


Re: Endless circles
If you had bothered to define it in those terms yourself when I asked you to then this discussion would have been much simpler. Neds definition is by no means one that you are likely to turn up. In fact it seems almost specifically tailored to be as broad as possible in what it allows to evolve, which is obviously going to leave much more scope for non-living things.
You could just as easily produce a similarly broad definition of life which would allow all imperfect self-replicators in. Your point that the code organisms don't produce exrement is irrelevant to the point. Unless your specific definition of life relies on the ability to excrete waste matter.
Perhaps you will finally allow that actually defining the terms of what you are discussing is important for having a meaningful discussion?
It would also help if you would focus more on the published work on artificial life evolution, such as the work using tierra and avida, rather than your own travelling salesman solution, since everyone can have proper information and access to data on published works whereas all I have is what you have said in passing in this thread as to your own program.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Parasomnium, posted 05-06-2004 6:58 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Parasomnium, posted 05-08-2004 8:07 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 24 of 27 (106684)
05-08-2004 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Wounded King
05-07-2004 5:20 AM


Re: Endless circles
In fact it Ned's definition of evolution, (P.) seems almost specifically tailored to be as broad as possible in what it allows to evolve, which is obviously going to leave much more scope for non-living things.
So what? Ned's definition has the necessary elements needed for evolution as a process to take place, regardless of what exactly it is that evolves. I think that biological evolution is just that process; it is not important for the process of evolution we see happening in nature whether the things evolving are alive or not.
The important thing is that the process takes place at all, simply on the basis of random mutation and natural selection. In nature's evolution, random mutation takes place during a process that could be called one of the defining elements of life, but for my purpose of showing that random mutation and non-random selection can produce any evolving complex system, it is not important how the random mutations come about.
I think that anything, whether alive or not (by whatever definition of life we'd agree upon), when subjected to those two principles of random mutation and non-random selection, would evolve, i.e. change in such a way as to become better adapted to the circumstances.
Your point that the code organisms don't produce exrement is irrelevant to the point. Unless your specific definition of life relies on the ability to excrete waste matter.
The problem here is that you didn't get my point. All I was trying to tell you is that there is a difference between simulated life and real life and there isn't a difference between simulated evolution and real evolution. The excrement was just an example and a joke (which you didn't get either).
Perhaps you will finally allow that actually defining the terms of what you are discussing is important for having a meaningful discussion?
I never did not allow this, I just never got around to it, because I was too busy trying to make another point clear.
It would also help if you would focus more on the published work on artificial life evolution, such as the work using tierra and avida, rather than your own travelling salesman solution, since everyone can have proper information and access to data on published works whereas all I have is what you have said in passing in this thread as to your own program.
As should be clear by now, I'm not interested in artificial life. (Well, I am interested in it, but not as a part of the problem we are discussing now.) So I am not going to discuss those publications. My programme is not about artificial life, it is about evolution. And about a quick solution to the Travelling Salesman problem, which falls into the category of the so-called N-P complete problems, meaning their solution takes an inordinate amount of time when approached with conventional techniques. The fact that an evolutionary approach yields such quick results, should also be an answer to those who argue that it takes too much time to arrive at the levels of complexity that we observe in nature. The example shows that the time argument is not a problem for evolution.
{edited to correct a typo}
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-09-2004 03:58 AM

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Wounded King, posted 05-07-2004 5:20 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Wounded King, posted 05-10-2004 4:48 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 25 of 27 (107184)
05-10-2004 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Parasomnium
05-08-2004 8:07 PM


Re: Endless circles
parasomnium writes:
All I was trying to tell you is that there is a difference between simulated life and real life and there isn't a difference between simulated evolution and real evolution.
Yes, you told me this. You have yet to give any reason why I ought to believe this however. You appear to be relying on an acceptance of your claim that you have produced an evolutionary algorithm which produces an optimal solution, I assume your quick solution is optimal rather than simply some solution, to a non-P problem. Has this been demonstrated on some other thread or are you simply relying on us accepting your authoritative statement on the matter?
Parasomnium writes:
All I was trying to tell you is that there is a difference between simulated life and real life and there isn't a difference between simulated evolution and real evolution.
Can you show this in some way? What are the differences? Without an actual definition of what life is how can you conclude that your code 'organism' is not fulfilling the neccessary criteria?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Parasomnium, posted 05-08-2004 8:07 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Parasomnium, posted 05-11-2004 8:27 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 26 of 27 (107384)
05-11-2004 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Wounded King
05-10-2004 4:48 PM


Re: Endless circles
WK, thank you for your reaction, I was beginning to fear for this thread. There's no need to answer every point I make in what follows, but feel free to do so if you want to.
parasomnium writes:
All I was trying to tell you is that there is a difference between simulated life and real life and there isn't a difference between simulated evolution and real evolution.
[WK answers:] Yes, you told me this. You have yet to give any reason why I ought to believe this however. You appear to be relying on an acceptance of your claim that you have produced an evolutionary algorithm which produces an optimal solution, I assume your quick solution is optimal rather than simply some solution, to a non-P problem. Has this been demonstrated on some other thread or are you simply relying on us accepting your authoritative statement on the matter?
Alas, your assumption is wrong. If my evolutionary algorithm would certifiably produce an optimal solution for an NP-complete problem, I would probably become fabulously famous, because that's one of the rather annoying aspects of that class of problems, it is almost certainly impossible to produce the optimal solution in an acceptable amount of time. And if anyone ever finds a quick way to the optimal solution of a particular problem of this type, they would have solved all problems of this type, hence the fame. This is the result of another characteristic of this class of problems: they are all interchangeable, there is a one to one mapping possible from each one of them to every other one of them. If you need it, there is an excellent explanation of NP-completeness here: NP-completeness - Wikipedia. For now, suffice it to say that finding the optimal solution for the Travelling Salesman problem for any non-trivial number of cities requires an inordinate amount of time (like 'longer that the universe exists').
So, as you may have guessed by now, an evolutionary algorithm does not produce the optimal solution. But it can produce a 99-percent solution, and in a very short span of time. And that is also what we see happening in nature. The solutions nature's evolution comes up with are generally very good, but hardly ever optimal, and sometimes even a bit strange. That they are very good solutions accounts for the fact that creationists often proclaim to see design in them. But, for example, our eye having a blind spot because the nerve layer is on the wrong side of the retina, or our oesophagus and windpipe crossing each other, sometimes resulting in death by choking, can hardly be called optimal solutions, can they? But optimal or not, for such sophisticated, seemingly designed solutions, they were arrived at in remarkably short, 'reasonable' time spans, contrary to creationists' often heard objection.
In short, the parallels between an evolutionary algorithm running in a computer and nature's evolution have led me to conclude that the process of evolution, stripped down to its bare essentials, can be applied to non-living things.
Parasomnium writes:
All I was trying to tell you is that there is a difference between simulated life and real life and there isn't a difference between simulated evolution and real evolution.
[WK answers:] Can you show this in some way? What are the differences? Without an actual definition of what life is how can you conclude that your code 'organism' is not fulfilling the neccessary criteria?
You have a very valid point there. I will talk about the life matter shortly. But first, let me stress that when I mention the term 'evolution' (in my statement that "there isn't a difference between simulated evolution and real evolution"), I don't stricktly mean the biological version of evolution as we see it happening in nature. We can never hope to simulate nature's evolution to such detail that viable conclusions about the details can be drawn from the simulation, it is much too complex for that.
What I would prefer 'evolution' to denote in this discussion is a general, more abstract principle, more or less like what Ned proposed:
NodyNed writes:
"Evolution is the change in 'specifications' of a population of 'entities' which is capable of imperfect replication under some (perhaps changing) conditions which affect it's success in the number of replicants it may produce."
For me, in simple terms, the three pivotal elements of a useful definition of evolution would be:
  • change in the outward appearance or behaviour of whatever is under scrutiny
  • random mutation of whatever it is that (wholly or in part) determines the outward appearance of the thing under scrutiny
  • non-random selection of more successful members of the 'population'
Since this definition does not single out nature's evolution as the only possible example, I should have said "there isn't a difference between a simulated evolution and a real evolution", or perhaps even better "a simulated evolution is a real evolution", in the sense that the essence of evolution (those three pivotal elements I mentioned above) would be present in the simulation. And, above all, there would be real changes noticeable, in that the memory of the computer (where all the information about the simulated evolving 'population' is stored) would really change under the unfluence of this evolution.
Now, about life. I concede that, for a given definition of life, a simulated life-form could fulfill the necessary criteria demanded by that definition. So, I agree a definition of life is needed in the end if we want to discuss the possibility of evolution of non-life. But if you look into the example of the Travelling Salesman problem, its solutions (itineraries!) certainly do not qualify as 'life' for any meaningful definition of life, yet one can use an evolutionary algorithm to arrive at a reasonable solution. To put it in simple terms: you start with a 'primordial soup' of mostly very poor solutions (random itineraries) and, through an evolutionary process, very good solutions (very efficient itineraries) bubble to the surface.
I realise I still haven't given you a definition of life (I'm still thinking about it), but for my purposes the exact boundary between life and non-life is not very critical because I think I've shown that even very clear non-life (meaning it does not fulfill any plausible criteria of 'life' at all) is susceptible to the essence of evolution.
I hope this sheds some light on how I think about this matter.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-11-2004 07:33 AM

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Wounded King, posted 05-10-2004 4:48 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Wounded King, posted 05-17-2004 5:55 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 27 of 27 (108758)
05-17-2004 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Parasomnium
05-11-2004 8:27 AM


You really have to give a meaningful defintion of life!!
Dear Parasomnium,
I'm glad you are not claiming your solution is optimal, I thought I was going to have to put you in the bin for cranks making grandiose claims. As it is you haven't really done anything to make this issue clearer. The fact that you can generate some sub-optimal solution for the TSP using an evolutionary algorithm is still just an assertion, although not one I have any trouble believing. Just out of interest how many 'generations' did it take to 'evolve' your 99% good solution?
Why do you think something you yourself did, the details of which are known only to yourself, is a better basis for a discussion than research everyone can have equal access to? If you expect me to familiarise myself with classifications of P and NP problemks and the equivalency of NP optimal solutions why is it too much to expect you to familiarise yourself with the published research on digital evolution? This research should surely provide just as adequate a basis for this discussion as your own work?
Parasomnium writes:
# change in the outward appearance or behaviour of whatever is under scrutiny
# random mutation of whatever it is that (wholly or in part) determines the outward appearance of the thing under scrutiny
# non-random selection of more successful members of the 'population'
Your first point seems vague and probably redundant. What is your TSP solution other than what it is? What behaviour does it regulate? Similarly a sequence of RNA may evolve in and of itself. I understand how this relates to evolution but I think saying 'outward appearance' and 'behaviour' are misleading and give too much of an organismal slant when, after all, you could be talking about an improved binding affinity in some protein. I think 'some observable change' would be sufficient. Arguably the 'evolution' of a limb is only really the evolution of sequences of DNA such that the final form of the limb is altered, I don't think you can seperate these two levels out as you appear to be trying to do, perhaps if you showed how these levels equate to aspects of digital evolution your reasoning might be clearer. Your other two points simply seem to be random mutation and natural selection, which I have no argument with.
Parasmonium writes:
But if you look into the example of the Travelling Salesman problem, its solutions (itineraries!) certainly do not qualify as 'life' for any meaningful definition of life, yet one can use an evolutionary algorithm to arrive at a reasonable solution.
Demonstrate this, show how the itineraries, or better still of the code 'genomes' of digital organisms in Tierra or Avida, cannot qualify as living by any 'meaningful' definition but can still undergo the neccessary processes to qualify as 'evolving' using your criteria. Presumably at some point in this process you will finally have to actually give what you consider a 'meaningful' definition of life and we can begin to properly discuss this. At the moment this is simply a further bald reassertion of your claim.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-17-2004 04:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Parasomnium, posted 05-11-2004 8:27 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024