On Natural selection of the laws of nature, Artificial life, Open-ended evolution of Interacting code-data-dual algorithms, Universal Darwinism and Buddhism-like illusion of the Self
DOWNLOAD ZIP BACKUP: ultimate-question.zip
1 Practical introduction
2 Theoretical introduction
3 On Natural selection of the laws of nature, Artificial life, Open-ended evolution of Interacting code-data-dual algorithms
4 Universal Darwinism and Buddhism-like illusion of the Self
5 Request to those who are interested in the research topic
The article contains two parts that try to provide ideas for the following problems:
-
An assumption about the research direction for answers to the question of the fundamental structure of the universe. Aka “Why these structures exist rather than others?”. Also “The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything”:) And theory of computation seems to be the field which language is the most suitable to answer this question.
-
How to use Universal Darwinism to combat nihilism that often accompanies atheism. Positive meaning of life of the sentient agents and their free will in the Universal Darwinism framework are simple consequences of natural selection postulates being fundamental. But it comes at a cost of Buddhism-like illusion of the Self.
This article gives point of view on several interconnected research directions that stem from a single ancient question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”. That is obviously answered with “It's just the way it is” and reduced into the proper question: “Why these structures exist rather than others?”. And this one needs answering and cannot be brute-facted away entirely (unless we are OK with something like Last Thursdayism. I'm not OK).
And theory of computation seems to be the field which language is the most suitable to answer this question.
3 On Natural selection of the laws of nature, Artificial life, Open-ended evolution of Interacting code-data-dual algorithms
a) “Why these structures exist rather than others?”: So this is not just about finding out how the universe works. It's about creating a mathematical framework of questions and answers suitable to find out why the universe is structured this way and not otherwise. Great part of Laws of nature are also (mathematical) structures that require explanation and history.
b) History from natural selection: For this purpose, the best available general-purpose explanation of emegrence of novel and stable complexity is proposed to be used: natural selection (NS) and evolution (which replaced the primordial general intelligence that was previously used by scholars for such explanations). Sraightforward natural selection with postulates: individuals and/are environment, selection/death, reproduction/doubling, heredity, variation/random (true random as in theoretical Bernoulli coin toss). And NS starts from some initial state (to avoid infinite regress).
c) Adding Open-ended evolution property: The idea is to search the mathematical framework in the form of a family of the simplest models capable of Open-ended evolution (OEE) and natural selection. That is, mathematical model/simulation of artificial life with OEE is one in which natural selection and evolution do not stop, but are able to continue until the emergence of intelligent life (theoretically). In some sense, such a family would be similar to the family of Turing-complete languages as in the formalized algorithms concept (only with OEE property instead of Turing completeness). History of emergence via natuaral selection is the answer to “Why these structures exist rather than others?” question (most part of the question).
d) “Gauging away” what is left by equivalence class: There is not a guarantee, but a hope that the equivalence class of all math models with OEE property will be the answer to the question why this particular model is used to answer the remaining part of the “Why these structures exist rather than others?” question: “It's just the way it is”. This is observed and brute-facted, not explained. In this specualtion we hope that all suitable OEE models are equivalent in their key behavior and key probabilities (whatever that means is to be defined) and their differences can be “gauged away”. If not, then this line of thought is screwed and we need to rewise.
e) Code-data-dual algorithms substrate for natural selection: As we are trying to historically explain as much as possible then we expect OEE model to be relatively simple (“as simple as possible, but not simpler”) with even space dimensions and a big part of the laws of nature being emergent (formed via natural selection for a very long time like in Cosmological natural selection). The best specualtion I know for evolution and NS substrate to work on is to imagine code-data-dual algorithms reproducing and partially randomly modifying each other. Formalizations of Turing-complete languages will presumably have common building blocks with the desired OEE models.
f) Assuming simple beginning of time: Searching for relatively simple and ontologically basic OEE models (very loosely described above) seem to be a feasible investigation direction for both OEE research program and answering “Why these structures exist rather than others?” question.
g) Why not “gauge away” “normal” physics theory?: Current physics theories contain mathematical structures that can be constructed via some algorithm hence it's far too early to brute-fact and assume them foundational as a whole (such structures might be evolved in code-data-dual algorithms substrate). On the other hand there is a good chance that some big portion of laws of nature would be necessary for a model to have an OEE propery.
In more deatails this topic was described in this small article, this section of the article (my favorite quote from the “The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy” is right before the appendix) and this outdated article.
The ideas above are actually a flavour of the Universal Darwinism. And there are some interesting ethical conclusions that can be derived from Universal Darwinism taken to extremes and called “Buddhian Darwinism” (or “Buddarwinism”/dxb). The conclusions on how to use Universal Darwinism to combat nihilism that often accompanies atheism. Positive meaning of life of the sentient agents in the Universal Darwinism framework is a simple consequence of natural selection postulates being fundamental. But it comes at a cost of Buddhism-like illusion of the Self.
d) Darwin: Cosmogonic myth from Darwinian natural selection is at Buddhian Darwinism core as a setting where everything takes place. The whole universe is a “jungle”, but survives not the strongest but survives the one who survives. And it is often the ones survive who balanced competition (Moloch) and cooperation (Slack) as Scott Alexander called them in “Meditations on Moloch” and “Studies on slack”. Competing for limited resources balanced with cooperating to increase the total amout of resources.
∞) Potential infinity: Quasi-immortality as a meaning of life. Quasi-immortal entities within the framework of natural selection are entities that can potentially exist forever albeit gradually changing. For example individuals with limited lifespan are not quasi-immortal but populations of such individuals are quasi-immortal entities. Religions, ideologies, nations, countries, noble families, corporations can also be such quasi-immortal entities (even populations of clonal digital sentient agents can be quasi-immortal entities). Beware that not all self-sustaining processes are a quasi-immortal entities. Some are suicide spirals whose death can be predicted beforehand.
x) Random: Free will as necessity to maximize survival probability. Sentient agents actively optimize their survival probability via actions. But they are ultimately not sure if such actions would really increase their survival as they have 1) probabilistic predictions, 2) limited prediction window. To workaround this limitation they should be able to spontaneously choose truly random locally non-optimal actions that in reality would lead to survival of subpopulation of sentient agents - fallback to blind and planless natural selection (globally optimal actions). Quasi-immortal entities that are quasi-sentient (like corporations) should also uphold free will in order to maximize survival probability. Here free will is in a sence of physical random number generator incorporated into the Self/agent.
b) Buddha: Buddhism-like illusion of Self: Death is bad but the death of what? The “Self” is not quasi-immortal hence it's preservation cannot be the meaning of life. It's not always useful to worry about its safety. We should worry about the survival of quasi-immortal entities. Sentient agent's meaning of life is to have a goal to maximize survival of some quasi-immortal entity. And we are actually free to choose one or several of many to be our meaning of life. But in most cases we inherit these meanings of life. Preserving the “Self” helps to achieve this goal in most cases. But there are notable and important cases when preserving the “Self” impedes to achieve this goal. Heroic self-sacrifice began to be glorified for a reason.
In more deatails this topic was described in this article.
I ask those who are interested in this topic and found this article worthy of attention to download an archive with the article and remember it from time to time. For with the recent attack on Russian radar, we have entered a new existential era. I will be especially glad to receive backups from countries where NATO countries and Russia do not have nuclear weapons.
DOWNLOAD ZIP BACKUP: ultimate-question.zip
Peter Zagubisalo, May 2024.