The Meaning of Life and Other Vegetables

Hello.

Today I’d like to present my current thinking around why (or how; it’s a fine line in this case), the complexity of the One would/should have emerged out of an infinite number of plain, a-tomic, ECA. You may consider it as a theory about the Evolution in RSU. I’ve mentioned it earlier, here and here (near the end of item 5), and now I feel the time has come to lay it out… Here goes:

Conscious Agents (CA) connecting together and creating complexity

I’ll use physical world Evolution as an analogue.

Suppose you have a given organism of some complexity. Basically, it’s made of elementary building blocks (let’s call them atoms) arranged in a certain way and connected with each other. This is what constitutes the organism.

Now, suppose that this organism dies and falls apart. It “ceases to exist” as the observable complex organism, and after a while the atoms that made it up will disconnect and disperse. The complex organism is not observable any more, but the atoms that made it up did not get annihilated. They still exist. If there was a detailed plan of how they were organised and connected, it would be possible, in theory, to collect them back and recreate the complex organism.

Hence, “existence” is not about the mere (physical, in this case) existence of the constituents. It’s about the observability of the complex assembly.

The measure of “success” (or the driver) in physical Darwinian Evolution is maintenance of observability. Atoms and molecules, and even organisms, are not required to “want” to survive (let alone thrive), either as individuals or as more generalized designs (DNA, species); they simply do or they don’t, and at the basic level it’s random. For a host of reasons, some maintain observable existence more than others – we call those “more successful”. But in essence, we simply take note that we observe some, while others we don’t. Again, no basic “want” or “tendency” on part of the object (be it a molecule or an organism) is necessary for it to work.

Back to the CA universe –

CA don’t “want” to build up complex structures, and they don’t have “a tendency” to do that. They simply connect at random. Why? At this stage let’s take it as an axiom that they do, just like physical atoms connect with each other based on some universal principle (completing electron shells). As Prof. Hoffman explains (at some length) in his latest interview, EVERY scientific theory postulates SOME axioms at its outset; there is no scientific theory that is completely free from base assumptions. I can speculate “a base CA connection principle” (as above) at a later stage, but right now I’d like to focus on a bigger picture.

So, CA connect at random. They also disconnect continuously, so these are competing trends. Complexity is built up where something causes the connection to remain, because, over cycles, more and more connections are generated, and some of them are kept in existence by “something” (I’ll get to that in a moment). The point is that, just like in the physical universe evolution, there is no need for a drive towards complexity. It does not need to be “wanted”, “favoured” or “rewarded”. Some of the complexity will be destroyed, over cycles. The important point is that the more complex the CA structure is, it is more noticeable / observable. The reason is its “size” – its ability to connect with more, and with “bigger” and more complex, structures, and to generate a larger, more intricate repertoire of responses (call it “thoughts”, “messages to other CAs” or the likes, if you wish). We easily observe the bigger / more complex CAs (the equivalent of an animal or a person); somewhat less the smaller/simpler ones (the equivalent of a tiny insect or a bacterium); and maybe not at all elementary CAs (which have no complexity at all). It’s just like we can’t readily observe physical atoms. Does that mean they don’t exist? No. But we don’t deem them “evolutionary successful” (though they are abundant and enduring).

Evolutionary success is measured by observable endurance. It’s not that things “want to” be observable. It’s the other way around – we are able to observe them, and then we assign the meaning of “being successful” to that. Some CA structures are just more stable, and so they gradually develop increasing complexity, and become more observable. They don’t intend that, or get rewarded by that; they just do; and hence, now they are “in existence”. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t be able to observe them, and we’d say “they don’t exist” or they “ceased to exist” (as complex structures; their constituents remain – just like in the physical universe analogue).

What gives CA structures stability (or longevity), and hence growth?

Consider this small set of axioms:

A₁: A connection is always made between a single output and a single input, of two elementary CA (ECA) [they may already be part of complex CA (CCA); but connection and stability are determined between the two connecting ECA, regardless; it’s like two atoms that connect regardless of being a part of a liver or a car]

A₂: A connection is generated at random, but its continuation is at the discretion of the “downstream” (receiving) ECA

A₃: By default, disconnected inputs are “quiet” (0) [At RSU’s “Big Bang” all inputs were at 0]

As a result of this set of axioms, there is a bias towards a state of 1 (“live”) at the outputs, because when connected to another ECA an output state of 0 is equivalent to no connection at all (so there is no “interest” for the downstream ECA to keep that connection – 0 is “guaranteed” anyway, when the input is disconnected). This can be modelled by the following rules:

• while both outputs (of an ECA) are at 1, no disconnection will occur at its inputs (we can humoristically say that the ECA is “happy” at this state)
• while one of the outputs is 0, an input that is 1 will, at a probability P₁, disconnect
• while both outputs are 0, an input that is 1 will, at a probability P₂, disconnect (P₂ >> P₁)

The logic above essentially means that the ECA “probes” what causes it’s outputs to go quiet (maybe “withdrawn”, “sad”, “confused” – in terms of our intuitive thinking), and if it “realizes” that it’s counterpart (an ECA currently connected at its input) is “causing” it to “feel” (or behave) that way, it is likely to “cut it loose”. I like thinking along these lines – it “humanizes” ECA, while it’s all still quite formal and “mathematical”.

Consistent application of the above axioms and rules will result, over cycles, in build up of complexity; where the underlying driving force is increased communication and increased “interest”.

I know that the above argument is far from being bullet-proof. Perhaps it even includes some cyclic reasoning, or other logical flaws. Nevertheless, I think it’s interesting, worth discussing, and can serve as a starting point for the theory of CA universe evolution.

Peace to all. See you tomorrow.