Topic: RE: Artificial Life

Topic StarterTopic
dessnr
opostrofyayahoo.com
April 21th 2005 07:25:48

RE: Artificial Life

( Posts: 4; New Posts: 4 ) [ See: ComDig 2000.21 ]

Hey there. I have always been interested in AL but I have not gone far into it until rescently. Even now I am at the tip of the iceberg of course. I have a question though that I have not seen asked as yet. We often ask ourselves, "What made me go this way instead of that way? What made me choose the apple over the pear when I like both." Well at the time, we may have felt more like the apple than the pear. Fair enough. But there were all these little electrons in our brain that made us go for the apple. Why that combination of electrons? Why not another combination, to make us eat the pear? There was something before the electrons formed that combination to help form it in the first place. So if you follow me so far. I ask this question. We we code (in any language, assembly, C++ or even basic) a program that runs random numbers, we expect that program to run random numbers. However, what made the computer pick 8 as it's first random number? What made the computer pick 143 as it's first random number? If we have just turned the computer on fresh, it has numbers in order, or more so 10011011 and so and so forth. That's what we told it to do. Is there a way to calculate what the first number is going to be on a random number program? We told the computer a set of rules in the bios, but where did we code that 8 or 10 or even 1916 will be it's first random number. We don't code it in the source code. We naturally give it a limit between two given numbers. > 1 but < 101 or >0 but < 101.. Either way. But we don't tell it (when it comes to random numbers), what it must pick first. So what is it in the computer that makes it pick what it picks first? There must be something invisible there to pick that exact number in the first place, because we didn't put it there. If we did, we would know what the computer was going to come up with. We can't say, "Ok, we told it that it can pick between this and that, so thats why it picks any number." Because it still pick 5 or whatever number it may be on it's own accord. Isn't that already AL? Thanks for reading if you did.
Shaun.

Posts

[ Logical order 1 ] [ Logical order 2 ] [ Chronological order ]

AuthorPost
Hugh Trenchard
htrenchardashaw.ca
April 25th 2005 00:49:08Report this post to administrator

NEW RE: Artificial Life

Hi Shaun. Your comments reminded me of Hans Christian von Baeyer's discussion of randomness in his book "Information" (2003).

Von Baeyer notes that, strictly speaking, computer software cannot actually generate a purely random sequence. A purely random sequence cannot be generated by an algorithm shorter than the sequence itself, Von Baeyer explains. As a computer always uses a "random" sequence algorithm that is shorter than the sequence itself, it is thereby incapable of producing a purely random sequence. Von Baeyer refers to papers which show the existence of identifiable patterns in the apparently random computer-generated sequences.

Aside from that, my thought is that *if* a computer could generate a purely random sequence, then the numbers selected would simply be a question of probabilities for each individual digit selected. So it seems to me that if there are 10 digits to choose from, then each one has an equal probability of 1 in 10 of being selected. The fact that the computer may have chosen a "1" and not a "9" would be immaterial, since they are probabilistically equal - the two digits might look different, but there is nothing deterministic in their selection.

Of course that could only be the case if a computer were capable of generating a purely random sequence, which von Baeyer shows is not possible. So it seems to me that in fact the numbers *are* selected "deterministically" to some extent based on the patterns inherent in the formulas/algorithms applied to the number sequence generation.

david walsh
david.m.walshaverizon,net
April 28th 2005 14:53:36Report this post to administrator

NEW RE: Artificial Life


This comment intends to encourage your prescient questions concerning our binary existence.

It does not appear there are any random numbers, nor has any computer mechanism assembly thus far determined that there is.

Probably ' random ' is yet another invented word-symbol of meaning in thought through which the more humble among us acknowledge our remaining ignorance of how the bio-binary system exists as a function of time, somewhere between such boundary conditions in thought as Is/Isn't; True/False; Good/Evil; Smart/Stupid. Moral/Immoral; Kind/Cruel, and so on ad infinitum - - - as was suggested by Chief U.S. Federal District Judge of the Federal District Court of Appeals Richard Posner in his recent books, " Economics and the Law " and " A Study In Decline ". Judge Posner suggested that such extreme attributes apply to all individuals, - - -Judges of Court, Members of the Bar and Petitioners alike.

The remarkable discovery to which your e-mail refers suggests that perhaps absolutes are real and not illusory, but that our flawed and presumptuous ( developing ) human nature cannot yet think or imagine anything excepting through a darkened glass of statistical probability between an infinite sum of two and only two extreme probabilities, none of which is random in the eral world.

It appears you are on the right track, pursuing the joy, beauty and purpose in questions of the unlimited unknown, knowing that in our binary existence that when we may understand the question more completely, the answer will be intuitively evident in the same degree of completeness.


Dave

dessnr
opostrofyayahoo.com
May 16th 2005 14:08:08Report this post to administrator

NEW RE: Artificial Life

Thankyou both for very interesting answers. It drives me crazy to think about it. I did not know that comuters in fact do not run true random numbers. That is something I am going to read up on right after I have written this post. Ignorance is a key nature in us all. It sometimes is bliss and sometimes becomes our scientific down fall. As you mentioned Hugh, the computer would pick 1 or 9 equally. However, what I am saying is, lets line up nine "1's" .. 111111111 . Which do you pick? Do you pick the first or the middle "1"? Or perhaps the last. The computer still has to make that descision does it not? In the case that computers have no true element in random numbers, this would mean that in fact, due to the way the bios was made, or when, it had a different man made starting seed for random numbers than another computer. EG. My computer was made fresh off the assembly line with the start seed 185639004. Your's was 836382867. This would mean that of course from then on the random numbers, would be different every time one is called upon. And what would make it even more different is dependant on the coder/programmer. (I could be wrong, just a theory but hopefully gets my point across) In the case that computers perhaps did pick random numbers. What made it pick the middle "1" over the 9th "1". Even if they are all equal, there was a reason that computer picked that unique 1 out of all those ones. I think Dave is right. (If I interpreted him correctly) It would be nice to think that we can rely on words like random. However we cannot really even begin to comprehend what true random is. For the main reason that, if I cannot work out how a computer works a random number out of descision, then how do I work out why I picked a certain number? Because that's what it really comes down to. I can ask little Johnny why he picked number 5 out of 1978 and he will say, "Just cause." We will often say, "Because 5 is a low number and that's why Johnny picked it. Nice and easy for him." In reality, we don't know why he picked it. Nor do we know why WE pick what we do when we are just thinking random numbers. First to come to our head? Yes. But why? Thankyou again for answering and I look forward to see what you say once again. Nothing short of a rush.
Shaun.