Monday, June 30, 2008

rational numbers versus integers

If we make an evolution sim, something that allows complexity from simplicity, it might be wise to never use an int for seeding stuff. The way in which integers are approximated in genetics seems to be by some kind of checking of one value against another, and subtracting on success, in effect allowing a quantity of a resource and letting fly until you've run out. This is more complicated to do with DNA than it is with computers, so i think this may lead to a better turnaround of hereditary complexity than any of my previous methods.

Friday, June 27, 2008

dimensional problems

I just thought about the 4 colour theorem and then thought about 3D knots. I wonder if there's something equally restrictive about 4 dimensional space, but we haven't found it because we don't "understand" 4 dimensions well.

are 3D knots the 4 colour problem of 3D space?

Saturday, June 21, 2008


Species may just be simple bifurcation law coming into play. the more elements in a finite resource environment, the more likely they would be better off splitting into two differing species, so the more diverse survive better than the similar.

Truth and the tautology of evolution.

Universal Darwinism reduced is: if you have variation, selection and heredity, you get evolution.

Susan Blackmore loves the word MUST from "You MUST get evolution". Must is a word that implies some form of universality.

I shorten Universal Darwinism to "survival of the survivors" to make it even more tautological in my own mind not because I wish to invoke some horrible "Karl Popper said it needs to be falsifiable", but to compare it to mathematical simplicity and truth. Karl Popper may have been right about theories, but some things aren't theories, they're actually proofs. The problem is, not many beleive in the idea of real world synthetic a priori with ramifications to new thought. Most people think that anything that can be figured out is worthless, as useless to science as "common sense".

There is a beauty in this truth of survival though because it is irrefutable. Like 1+1=2. To me, it's the world of maths and discoverable truths leaking into every day existence. I want to know how many other truths there are out there. How many ideas that are floating around as common sense or obvious truths that only when properly considered make new bold claims and lead to new discoveries.

I believe that we get evolution because at some point, something is going to have variations and heredity in a limited resource environment. Unless you get a system that survives, and has to succeed at surviving, you won't see it evolve. Unless you get evolution, you wouldn't exist to ponder it. Evolution could be seen as the best example of algorithmic anthropic principle.

Again, what other algorithms could there be out there?

Evolution is lucky to have itself linked to the anthropic principle in this way. We can talk about it because it happened. What other things, facts, allow us to talk about them? Language? What's the proof of langauge? Evolution's math is "survived because it survived", Language's math may just be the same and would therefore offer no further advance toward more truths.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Why are we intelligent?

Watching a video on the uses of evolution to generate artificial intelliegence, I had a click in my head. The video had a segment about the average brain complexity over time. The brain complexity went up then had a hump and then plateaud out a little lower. The speaker agreed with someone in the audience that one reason that the AIs may have become slightly less complex after their hump of high complexity would have been because they evolved to be as complex and no more complex than necessary to survive well. Then they surmised that the complexity of the environment affects the complexity of the entities in it.

I can see how this works today too. We evolved from bacteria to some mammalian form over a long period of time, and the mammalian form was as complex as necesary at that time. From that form to the living in groups form that we have now, the complexity of the environment has been adjusted by not only outside affectors like other life forms, but also inside ones too. The first breed of altruists lead us to a better genetic victory, but altruism brought a new layer of complexity to the world for those that worked in it's circle. It became necessary to remember those that have repaid, those that cheat, how to cheat without being found out, how to survive novel circumstances, and probably more. The complexity of the new environment may not actually be a new and more complex physical environment, but the required brain complexity for thriving survival got bigger and bigger, like an arms race of intelligence, religion and honour systems springing forth to add some reduced complexity controls, and people following others so their brains can be artificially bigger.

So, are we intelligent because we are only as intelligent as we need to be, in a complex environment made from our own intelligence which was driven by the inherent complexity of living as a group?

Monday, June 16, 2008

Pi day.

Stupid septics with their 3.14 day. They are silly thinking that they know what Pi is about. Pi is simple and irrational, so the calculation of Pi day should be simple, but produce an irrational day.

we're in 2008, soooo

2008 / pi = 639.16625145705166844783719370402
639 * pi = 2007.4777056438778793776291219156
640 * pi = 2010.6192982974676726160917652989

the last pi day was in 2007, June 23rd, 0842hrs and 5 seconds
the next one in 2010, August 14th, 0103hrs and 11 seconds.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

The need to be seen

This weekend, when I was in town walking towards the KFC, my wife pointed out that there was a woman walking the other way with her breasts on show. She wasn't topless, she was just wearing a loose dress, but had purposefully rearranged her clothes so that she was half nude.

It's moments like this that spark off lots of different thoughts in my mind. The first thoughts at the time were obvious male animal ones. Ones that meant I didn't take in her face very well. My later thoughts turned to why she was doing it. She wanted to make a display of herself, but was she aware that no-one saw her? I often wonder if people realise that by commiting extravagant acts, they realise that no-one sees them, instead they see the act. I then thought that maybe you could take the idea of hiding in plain sight one step further and hide in extreme sight. Think about it, if a bank was robbed by a few naked girls, they wouldn't even need masks to make their getaway. They could even get away with just having throw on dresses and their hair up during the raid and maybe stash the money in prams as soon as they were out of sight. Crazy maybe, but who would be looking for mum's pushing prams when they'd just seen naked girls with guns and tight and high hair dos?

The other thing that crossed my mind was how she would have reacted to someone stopping her walking. While she was moving, all was okay, but imagine if someone stopped her. I don't mean like the police, but more like just a straight forward stop her and ask her if she knew what she was doing. Would that break the spell for her enough to become ashamed? Would it ruin it for her? The moment lost?

Me, I'm all for more of these kinds of remarkable attention seeking displays. Purely from a philosophical pondering point of view of course.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Tyranny of Threes

Slow Medium Fast.

What's medium? Slow and Fast can be identified as the slowest usable, and the fastest possible, but Medium? What is it? Logarithmically halfway? Linearly?

I've noticed that in most cases, people want to use things at slow or fast, not using medium, but it's got to be there to make up the three. Medium is often too slow or too fast to be a usable medium.

Small Medium Large.

Medium feels like being short-changed.

Light Medium Dark.

Its just so grey.

Thursday, June 05, 2008


I don't believe in an afterlife, but i did believe that people go on in the memories of others. I believed that it was important to tell stories of the people of your past to learn from them and their actions and the resulting consequences.

But these two things don't correlate. Learning and thinking about someone is not them living. Sarte noticed it. People are only alive if they are changing.

Never stay the same. If you do, you're dead. Choose to improve or choose to fail, it's just important to choose something. If you don't choose, you end up being a dead entity running on auto for the rest of your pointless life.