This is very interesting. More details about the model itself would be appreciated though.
Perhaps application towards RNA/DNA/protein synthesis can shed light on the creation of the first life form.

I suppose, that just as 95% of studies with keywords like "complexity", "emergence", "evolution of order", "self-organization", this one is also blind to the range of dependecy of complex systems from their environment. To the fuzzines of their borders - how many external systems superimpose within given local volume, on different levels, with different efficiency bonds. Self-organization is a fiction. Eco-self-organization (or self-eco-organization) is a fact. It is an evolution of nested multilevel niches of countles systems, inter-systems, sub-systems not the evolution of separate systems. So a bit mysterious source of "more inteligent phase-space managament" that Entropica's algorithms partially imitate will always be trackable only within environmental-scale micro-level probabilities. It is global civilization (humans+their tools+resources+...) that feeds by decreasing energetic potentials - individual humans are just replaceable carriers.
:)

If anyone is interested, here's the link to the full paper:
http://www.alexwg...8702.pdf

This is almost scary.

This is almost scary.

Why? What is scary about (possibly) getting a grip on what intelligence is (and it, again possibly, being rather simple)?
Think of the possibilities. If it's easy to make intelligent choices then it may be easier than we thought to construct artificial intelligence.

Sure, it's another (and final) blow to our belief in 'human superiority' and uniqueness...but so what?

Sure, it's another (and final) blow to our belief in 'human superiority' and uniqueness...but so what?

See for comparison: Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation, which represents adaptively evolved ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction sans causal entropic forces. http://dx.doi.org...e.643393

Thus, complex behaviors are adaptively evolved sans mutations theory as modeled in Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution. http://dx.doi.org...e.155672

Life reverses the course of entropy.

Life reverses the course of entropy.

Whatever gave you that idea?

It seems life forms from disordered material into something more ordered, and yes i don't know thermo at all its just a thing to ponder whilst sipping a pint.

This is still nowhere near general intelligence, because it has no purpose. Human intelligence for example is something rich which first must be DEFINED. So this isn't general intelligence, it's slapping an algorithm onto the use-case. Although intelligence in general including our very specific brand of human intelligence is invariably built on such thermodynamic and so on systems. But this isn't more fundamental than the stuff I think about.

AI is still a very stagnated field because of MODERN ECONOMICS AND ITS PROPREITARISM causing software in general to be horrifically inaccessible to the gamers/users that could be adding to general functionality (i.e. building a central AI definition of human meaning!) every day; not because of some magic god algorithm that will save our lazy asses from the real work-- again; this needs stressing. AI won't just compute itself, if it does it'll be here in far longer than 50 years so good luck with ever seeing it.

Other than that, very interesting

General intelligence must be purely abstract and free of physical, planetary-atmospheric-specific models. You should know this if you've thought about computing/AI. Also, a true theory of entropy would have to account for the thoughts we have in creating the theory of entropy ;)

It seems life forms from disordered material into something more ordered, and yes i don't know thermo at all its just a thing to ponder whilst sipping a pint.

I can see what you mean. The more generalized view is that a disordered system with high entropy can be (locally) reversed (ie, become more ordered, less disorganized) by the input of energy. So, in order to tidy up your disordered room, you must expend energy to overcome entropy.

But energy can come from many sources, not just through living agents. The formation of those living agents also required an input of energy.

and yes i don't know thermo at all

Well, then have a quick sashay over to wikipedia or a textbook. It's not all that hard (and it will quickly show you that your idea about life is wrong from the get-go).
Any time you have spent pondering this was pretty much wasted and could have been saved by a 20 second google.

General intelligence must be purely abstract and free of physical, planetary-atmospheric-specific models.

Which this is, if you had read the paper. The examples they show are just random applications of the principle to show that it ISN'T limited to a specific model.

Also, a true theory of entropy would have to account for the thoughts we have in creating the theory of entropy

Why? What's so different about the thermodynamics of a self referential thought as opposed to a non-self referential one?

>Which this is, if you had read the paper. The examples they show are just random applications of the principle to show that it ISN'T limited to a specific model.

It's an algorithm. Our physical reality is far more complex, and has effects of its own acting on our 'environment' that are ongoing and very specific to our universe and, more specifically, our planet's atmosphere. To begin talking about general intelligence you have to first define what frame of reference by which you are even defining 'abstract'. To introduce an algorithm on a few pages and say "boom- intelligence!" doesn't explain what is inevitably a set/subset of complex systems interacting ("the universe"). Intelligence is everywhere, effectively, and the observer selectively attributes its meaning.

>Why? What's so different about the thermodynamics of a self referential thought as opposed to a non-self referential one?

Complexity of its meaning. I guess science can't go broader than traditional media.

If our society was serious about understanding very complex things of this nature, then we'd have more people as scientists, for a start. And for that matter, as Near-Term Extinction is here, I don't see why all fields of science shouldn't turn their focus onto the current converging crises of the world- economic collapse; climate change; lack of critical thinking.

http://guymcphers...-update/

If our society was serious about understanding very complex things of this nature, then we'd have more people as scientists, for a start.

You can't just arbitrarily up the numberof scientists.
1) Being a scientists requires the sort of brain power very few have
2) Science has to be funded without knowing whether it'll pan out, since you're always totally fishing in the unknown. There must be a solid econmic basis for us to be able to afford doing science.

Complexity of its meaning.

So? What has hat got to do with thermodynamics?
A landslide is more complex than a single stone falling downhill. From a thermodynamic standpoint there is no QUALITATIVE difference (only a quantitative one).

To introduce an algorithm on a few pages and say "boom- intelligence!"

Why not? Einstein's paper on realtivity isn't any longer (The E equals m c squared paper is 3 pages long). And look where it lead us.

>From a thermodynamic standpoint there is no QUALITATIVE difference (only a quantitative one).
>Why not? Einstein's paper on realtivity isn't any longer (The E equals m c squared paper is 3 pages long). And look where it lead us.

Relativity is a fundamental aspect of intelligence/experience, whereas, intelligence itself as an entirely imaginary (and individual!) human construct cannot be defined like that, because it's entirely subjective (as well as viewed as "relating to the universe"), which means it requires an observer to be defined, and like meaning it cannot be quantified (in a broad/absolute sense), because meaning doesn't inherently exist like laws of the universe do, and thus you have to first DEFINE (in rich detail) what the observer is and how he functions, to express something there, because it is context contingent. "There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy." - Nietzsche

similarly; watch up to 5 min in - http://www.youtub...xnqGJLeu

The presented algorithm seem to represent also general statistical behaviour,
which does not exclude unknown events, but purely associates low probability with them.
As raindrops usually move towards earth, except on the front window of a driving car.
During my practical training in a workshop it happened to me, that a hammer fell from my work bench. It bounced once and finally stood upright on its handle on the floor.
I did not experience a repetition the last 54 years.
Our physical laws are derived from observing most probable incidents, which are then described as logical. But with huge time frames, events and processes with low probability
will occur as evolution of life and intelligence. Math teacher.

I would like to see a proof of this concept with a game learning situation. Chess or an other boardgame. The rules would not be coded in anyway whatsoever. The machine would just lose the game if he plays a wrong move, and immediately the board would be put to the initial position.
Hopefully, the machine would learn the moves by experience and if the principles of this entropica software is right, I guess it should do its best to win.