I think so. That's why reality has fractal shapes. Circuit boards look like cities for electrons. Rivers look like arteries in a body. Lightning looks like offspring lineages. The universe has a few fundamental processes in it that repeat throughout all scales and the process of human development means technology also goes through an evolution.
Those example motifs you mention are necessary for complex life but perhaps not sufficient. Maybe necessary isn't the right word, just emergent properties of low level phenomena
Indeed, people begin by assuming that since programmable computers can approximate many classes of patterns and since computers are amazing therefore everything is just an instance of this class.
Were this true, I cannot see why any system wouldn't be a model of any system; ie., alchemy would be possible.
What people forget is that "programming" in the alchemical sense requires a star.
Once you get specific about what properties and processes actually correspond to the allegdeged "complexities" you're talking about, its obvious that no programmable machine will implement them; as obvious as none will turn lead into gold.
I dont think that's where this conversation was going. I believe you got that impression from me mentioning fractals, but even so fractals are only self similar not identical.
Maybe the fractal nature of computing is not in the "are we living in a simulation?" Kind, but is in the "we can imitate what we see at a different scale with fundamental units, logic/math, and visual field". In a sense it is a universe within a universe, but that doesn't imply everything is everything. It implies there are many things at different scales that are self similar. Scale still exists and is relevant.
Yes, i agree. the fact that lightning and tree roots look similar are not enough to explain complex life. But i do think the universe is bound to imitate itself at different scales. How a human is made of cells and societies are made of individual humans. And so i think in that way one can also explain how programming languages go through an evolution with us.
I lost the point I'm making but the idea is that human ideas take shape from what can be perceived. Humans copy what is effective in nature, so yeah complex life also creates technology with humans as the conduit. We are Gods apparently, or demi-gods if you'd like to be more humble
reality has fractal shapes -- eeehhh... it kind of doesn't
Circuit boards look like cities for electrons -- they look like cities for ants for me. But no, actually they don't look at all like cities, not the most recent smd circuits and there's no living spaces, no suburbia, no parks and so on on circuit boards, nothing like cities. Just roooughly looking like a city for a child, especially all the old stuff with big vacuum tubes and big capacitors.
Rivers look like arteries in a body -- no it doesn't look anything like. Arteries are tubes, rivers just go from high to low elevation and all rivers end up in lakes or seas. There's multiple loops, from your heart to your lungs to clear CO2, from the heart to the rest of the body to give O2 and nutrients; then most of the blood returns via capillary to the veins that make the reverse course and some of the fluids go into the lymphatic system. I mean, nothing like rivers.
Sure, if you look at a small picture from high above, it might look similar, but so would be trees and branches, roads or a peace of lint from my belly button.
Lightning looks like offspring lineages -- again, no, it kind of doesn't.
I say this about the universe not because i made it up, but because i see the pattern and i recognize a material cause for it.
Tree branches and arteries try to complete a similar function. They want to cover an area or volume as much as possible.
Circuit boards and cities look alike because they also complete similar functions. Roads/traces serve as a means of transport and buildings/components are places where the transported object undergoes a process, be them electrons or people.
Routers and networks also have a topology similar to information propagation in people or societies too because they serve the same function. People/routers are nodes and the info connection is an edge.
I'm not saying all of human society can be reduced to a CISCO manual, I'm saying they share similar structures.
Offspring lineages and lightning patterns are also similar because of the similarities between evolution and reproduction and finding the path of least resistance.
Not all of these structures have to be branching. There are many other kinds. Like how water forms a vortex and galaxies spiral.
Natural selection is a good model not just for technology, but for ideas in general. Ideas have their own lifespans and virality coefficients, but they're like viruses in that they depend on their hosts, so their fitness is partially dependent on the fitness of their hosts. That's why our morals exist, because societies that had them were more fit than societies where everyone was totally selfish. We don't like to think of morality in terms of fitness though, because of our morals, ironically.
> That's why our morals exist, because societies that had them were more fit than societies where everyone was totally selfish
Or, our morals exist because they allowed us to steamroll other less selfish and more altruistic groups because we were able to frame them as outgroup 'others'.
Prior to the 20th century, communicating ideas had a much higher cost. If we're talking about natural selection with respect to ideas, then we have to consider the last 100+ years as a massive environmental shift that we have not yet adapted to.
On the topic of complexity of life created structures, I found this Lex Fridman's interview with Lee Cronin fascinating and thought-provoking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZecQ64l-gKM
I think so, at least in the broadest sense. Modern software has glaring flaws that make scaling it astoundingly complex, in a large part because of "Worse is Better". Coincidentally, I've been developing a screed on the bird website going deeper into this. It's a massive problem that must be solved, before we unintelligently create another intelligence to take care of it for us.
> If technology x is replaced by a superior technology y, then technology x naturally goes “extinct.”
That is a gross simplification. Monopolies have a perverse incentive to crush superior technology that might otherwise supplant them. The electric car is just one example. Superior technology does not automatically achieve widespread adoption. If it were that easy nobody would need advice or venture capital.
It's hard to see change as you're in the midst of it, but take a decade or two and it becomes apparent. Technological replacement is not instant but it does happen inevitably if there is competition or we face societal challenges.
It's a gross simplification of how it normally works in biological systems as well. Not that often that a totally dominant species that occupies the exact same niche appears. If it is a closely related species, if there aren't strict barriers to gene flow (i.e. they can reproduce) the species will just combine and those beneficial characters may or may not get swamped. If the second dominant species doesn't completely occupy the niche, the original is likely to just shift and specialise in a different part of niche - different food, shift in habitat, etc.
In real life example fitting isn't as simple as "better at solving a problem". With cars you also have to deal with people psychology which forms an environment of its own
I think an i9 is distinguishable from an i7 and a human.
All our artifice isn't meaningfully different than termite mounds in this sort of sense.
So, a more prudent/understandable question is: just how alien do you need to be to unsure where to draw the "organism/not-organism" line on a termite mound+termites or as a counterpoint: on a snail or clam vs thier shell.
Does the fact that the shell of animal was chemically changed by it's body give it some specialness? Or would an animal that constructed limb extensions on demand from wood or stone include those bits? What about brain extensions from bits of metal and glass?
“Imagine, for a moment, a beautiful flower. That flower might be an orchid or a rose, or even a simple little daisy growing beside a path. Looking into a flower, we can see that it is full of life. It contains soil, rain, and sunshine. It is also full of clouds, oceans, and minerals. It is even full of space and time. In fact, the whole cosmos is present in this one little flower. If we took out just one of these “non-flower” elements, the flower would not be there. Without the soil’s nutrients, the flower could not grow. Without rain and sunshine, the flower would die. And if we removed all the non-flower elements, there would be nothing substantive left that we could call a “flower.” So our observation tells us that the flower is full of the whole cosmos, while at the same time it is empty of a separate self-existence. The flower cannot exist by itself alone.“
The argument you present is also a tautology on the prexisting label on the bounds of a "flower" (note the error is in the context you are using the quote, the quote is awesome)
Faced with a field of flowers the technology to examine them in detail and without existing schema to bias, it is unlikely a flower in isolation could be considered a single organism, thier roots meld and many organisms require each other for metabolic and reproductive processes to succeed, it seem most likely to consider the he entire field a single organism in the sense you are reaching for.
Because they are accessible examples of things that many people have been enculturated to perceive as communities that are more reasonably interpreted as single organisms.
The logic that would lead to thier classification as a "community" if applied evenly would force us to consider every multicellular organism a "community".
Pull any single petal or leaf from the flower, and yet it still grows and thrives. We can see each of the petals and leaves are of a kind with the others, so perhaps their removability doesn't imply that lack of membership in the flower.
In persuit of this mystery, we looked closely at the flower, found all the petals, stamen, and roots were in fact made of little plants themselves. Often these "cells" are of different shape shape and function in the flower, but chemical stimulation seems all it takes to coerce most to take on a different role.
The truth perhaps, is that there isn't a flower, only a civilization of these "cells" but thier behavior, cooperation, and the structures of sugars that build around themselves are what makes up the "flower" and that it's current form was borne of millions of years of iteration and experimentation in form and function made it what it is today.
From the outside, the termite mound (and all the termites inside) are reasonably all the body of one organism. Just as reasonably they are not functionality different than a human body or a human civilization. The only difference between an i9 and your bones is the story you tell yourself about it.
You are an ambulatory inside-out coral colony with delusions of grandeur signaling to your peers over a glorified mycorrhizal network we grew together.
A beautiful analogy ... unfortunately just an analogy. One book I liked in theoretical biology was "Cats Paws and Catapults" by Steve Vogel (978-0393319903) about how biology and technology adopt different designs due to use of different materials.
Simply put, both birds and planes have wings but one if a flexible membrane that flaps and the other is a fixed structure with a jet engine.
So you posit that "had to be chemically changed by the organism as part of it's metabolism" as a requirement to be part of it?
Otherwise, what makes building a flying machine with a fixed structure and a jet engine fundamentally different than incorporating environmental iron into a shell? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaly-foot_gastropod
Good point, although it makes me wonder what a 'mechanical metabolism' might be.
I've heard of the worm with a fool's gold shoe before (or iron sulfide of some kind). There are also Antarctic fish that make antifreeze proteins that bind to ice crystals to stop them grow. Also trees make themselves by extracting smoke from the air using light and water.
Ok, so maybe I have to work on the analogies. However, my point is that organic systems (biological organisms) are embedded in physical systems. They can manipulate the environment to collect energy and use bits of it to repair themselves.
Talking of iron-sulfide, there are tiny cubes of Fe-S in many enzymes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron%E2%80%93sulfur_protein). I remember talking with my supervisor at Glasgow about the possibility of these being fragments of ancient catalytic machinery from when biology was much closer to the metal (as it were) and these parts have gradually been enveloped in protein.
I liked Alexander Cairns-Smith's book that describes a 'rope' of systems, starting with a thread of replicating clay that templates replicating RNA that leads to DNA and so on. It makes sense to me that the origin of life would have to involve the rocks and minerals. Nick Lane has some theory about serpentinite as well.
Summing up, biological systems can absolutely have metal parts. They even have rotational engines (of a sort) in flagella. However, biological and non-biological designs are often very different because of the different scales and levels of organisation. A human is organised across at least 7 levels (atoms, molecules, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, whole) where a tractor is really just (atoms, parts, whole). A fruit fly swims through the air due to its tiny scale, while a plan e forces its way through.
Apologies, bit of a ramble - I'm a little tired today.
> designs are often very different because of the different scales and levels of organisation.
This is our disconnect. I'm arguing for definitions that are scale invariant. In the long run and the wide (universal) scale I would expect any developing system to just increase in "layers of scale" over time so basing our labels on them doesn't seem useful.
In that view "technology" is just another natural specialist organelle produced by the biosphere.
As a fun aside, In the context of viewing the entire biosphere as an organism implies we are it's (still maturing) reproductive organs and that space colonization and terriforming will just be the organisms calfing season.
If that i9 (or more realistically a more efficient M1) was powering a robot, who went on to learn and create other robots, and they eventually go to another planet, mine it’s resources, make more of themselves and teach other, would they, in their effects upon the universe and their interactions with others, be any distinguishable from any other “life”?
It all started with self replicating genes, and later with ideas. A self replicator would quickly conquer the available resources and then have to face competition to continue to replicate. We're what happens after billions of years of copying and pasting information under adversarial conditions.
Technology is also a self replicator in the space of ideas and artefacts, and it also has limited resources available.
> A self replicator would quickly conquer the available resources
No it wouldn’t, if it didn’t want to.
Have we conquered our own solar system yet?
Or even our own planet? (You’d be surprised how much space is still unpopulated)
Unless you meant a perfectly automated replicator, but even then, like viruses, they would have limitations and face resistance from natural forces and distance, logistics etc.
Most of our solar system is pretty difficult to get to for humans (the overwhelmingly vast majority of those living today will never be in space), so why do you consider it as an available resource? It's like criticizing bacteria in a petri dish for failing to use the ample resources of a nearby supermarket.
> so why do you consider it as an available resource? It's like criticizing bacteria in a petri dish for failing to use the ample resources of a nearby supermarket.
Congratulations! You just realized why the Fermi Paradox is self-assuming tripe, or the concept of “Von Neumann probes”
I personally think it's the discovery of Proof of Work algorithms leading to dismantling of solar systems to build Dyson Spheres that capture a sun's energy to power miners. Possibly constructed by Von Neumann machines thinking about it :)
The MathLabs competition reminds me a lot of speedrunning progressions in video games. The routes and techniques used to complete a video game as fast as possible evolve as the speedrunning community shares videos of their record-setting runs. It's a really cool environment for developing the "technology" behind each speedrunning category, and I'd be fascinated to read analysis similar to this article.
