[WriterOfMinds]

In true randomness, you necessarily have maximal complexity, somewhere.

I suppose there's a location of maximum complexity or structure in any random system, but that maximum needn't be very large.  The only thing I can think of that guarantees you a large amount of structure, somewhere, is an infinite and non-repeating sequence -- like those infinite mathematical sequences that can be proven to eventually contain every possible finite sequence of digits.  (Note that these are not necessarily random, though they might have such a distribution that all sequences of the same length are equally probable.)  If you mapped groups of digits to CPU instructions, such a sequence would contain every possible program, and some of them would be highly complex -- including all feasible AGI programs.  But good luck finding and running them!  Searching for the first AGI in such a sequence could take an arbitrarily long amount of time.  So you'd still be better off just writing the AGI yourself, by applying your rationality.

But if everything was random, like in universe, then you'd have maximal complexity, and complex animals like humans.

What do you think?

How do you even know our universe is fully random?

[Zero]

I understand, but I wasn't suggesting we find AGI in Pi for instance. That's obviously non-sense.

I'm just saying that natural selection works, and that in experiments you only get the complexity you add in the the mix because there are artificial ingredients in the experience, while in nature everything is potentially of infinite complexity, including the "what's best" function. My hypothesis is that the output complexity is never greater than the smallest input complexity.

Funny thing: when my 5 yo daughter saw your avatar this morning, she said: "it's mommy's eye"... like she knew it was the eye of a female. To me it looks more like the eye of a T-Rex

Edit:

It is true that this book, NKS by Wolfram, is full of "this is revolutionary" assertions, that tend to get boring. I understand why reception wasn't entirely positive. On the other hand, imagine you're the author, you spent 20 years working hard on a topic, and you write the one big book of your life... makes you forgive him. You can have an intelligent read of the book, understanding the feelings of the author, while still enjoying interesting parts of it.

[LOCKSUIT]

Funny thing: when my 5 yo daughter saw your avatar this morning, she said: "it's mommy's eye"... like she knew it was the eye of a female. To me it looks more like the eye of a T-Rex

I wish I was there to see that moment bro.

[Korrelan]

 

[WriterOfMinds]

Funny thing: when my 5 yo daughter saw your avatar this morning, she said: "it's mommy's eye"... like she knew it was the eye of a female. To me it looks more like the eye of a T-Rex

Cute.
I suppose I think of it as a golem's eye.  To me it looks like a humanoid face, but made of clay or dirt.

[Korrelan]

I'd say definitely some kind of bird/ raptor... colourised eagle eye maybe...

https://photos.app.goo.gl/frVapbC4dRpXDGMs9

 

[Art]

I think that most young children are brutally honest and simply see things as they are in their simplest terms...but no simpler. (reference Einstein) 

[ivan.moony]

Haven't find a time to read it fully, but isn't this book all about automata theory?