Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Is life a form of computation?

    (thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
    222 points redeemed | 16 comments | 23 Sep 25 20:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.569s | source | bottom
    Show context
    karmakurtisaani ◴[23 Sep 25 21:37 UTC] No.45353075[source]▶
    I don't see the point of asking this question. Like, sure, all physical systems follow certain rules, so any such process will develop in a way that it look like a computation of an algorithm. Also, evolution itself is constantly optimizing organisms to best adapt to their environment, just like a computation.

    So asking if life is a computation seems mostly like a semantic musing. Define "life" and define "computation", then see if they're the same.

    replies(3): >>45353368 #>>45353391 #>>45353833 #
    1. measurablefunc ◴[23 Sep 25 22:06 UTC] No.45353368[source]▶
    Evolution is not optimizing anything. What's happening in the biosphere is a process of mutation & selection, it's not optimization towards any particular goal or objective. Furthermore & slightly more abstractly, b/c of conservation of mass & energy, what's actually happening is re-organization of existing biomass into different life forms enabled by solar radiation.
    replies(5): >>45353425 #>>45353871 #>>45353932 #>>45356589 #>>45356939 #
    2. 47282847 ◴[23 Sep 25 22:10 UTC] No.45353425[source]▶
    Survival?
    replies(1): >>45353512 #
    3. ◴[23 Sep 25 22:18 UTC] No.45353512[source]▶
    4. heavyset_go ◴[23 Sep 25 22:55 UTC] No.45353871[source]▶
    > what's actually happening is re-organization of existing biomass into different life forms enabled by solar radiation.

    And the flux of geothermal and chemical energy

    replies(1): >>45354106 #
    5. nathan_douglas ◴[23 Sep 25 23:01 UTC] No.45353932[source]▶
    I suppose I fail to see why evolution through natural selection is not optimizing. That was Darwin's big idea, right? That given heredity, selection, and variation you end up with life forms we'd consider optimized for their environments?

    Or do you mean that optimization by definition must include intent, and evolution as a mindless process has no intentionality?

    I'm just not sure what you're driving at.

    replies(1): >>45354354 #
    6. measurablefunc ◴[23 Sep 25 23:21 UTC] No.45354106[source]▶
    That's true. We wouldn't have fossil fuels w/o geological activity & mass churning.
    7. robotresearcher ◴[23 Sep 25 23:48 UTC] No.45354354[source]▶
    Optimization is by definition with respect to some cost function or goal. Evolution has none. Evolution happens, but has no goal.
    replies(4): >>45354388 #>>45355459 #>>45355860 #>>45356690 #
    8. nathan_douglas ◴[23 Sep 25 23:52 UTC] No.45354388{3}[source]▶
    Ah! That makes sense. Thank you for explaining!
    9. davidkwast ◴[24 Sep 25 02:06 UTC] No.45355459{3}[source]▶
    The goal is to accelerate Entropy
    10. emmelaich ◴[24 Sep 25 03:08 UTC] No.45355860{3}[source]▶
    I would say the goal is survival. Which happens at the cell/dna.. level (mostly) not the organism. (nod to Dawkins)
    replies(1): >>45356529 #
    11. the_af ◴[24 Sep 25 05:11 UTC] No.45356529{4}[source]▶
    Evolution has no goals, not even survival. Evolution is something that happens. Some species survive for a while, others don't.

    Think of it like saying water has the goal of flowing down the mountain along the path of least resistance. Of course it doesn't, it's just something that happens. There's no goal.

    replies(1): >>45357485 #
    12. karmakurtisaani ◴[24 Sep 25 05:21 UTC] No.45356589[source]▶
    But genetic algorithms are used for optimization all the time. I don't see how evolution is much different from them.

    A shark is pretty damn optimized bunch of molecules to survive in water, would you not agree?

    I suppose this boils down to your definition of "optimize".

    13. moi2388 ◴[24 Sep 25 05:39 UTC] No.45356690{3}[source]▶
    That’s the claim. But are we sure about that?

    I certainly have a goal when selecting my partner and creating my offspring; at the very least that they’re happy and healthy.

    replies(1): >>45357019 #
    14. random3 ◴[24 Sep 25 06:23 UTC] No.45356939[source]▶
    That's a rather strong statement, but incorrect in both result and formulation.

    How is mutation and selection entail it's not optimization? Your motivating the lack of a goal for a process by describing it's composition. It seems like a logical (Non sequitur fallacy) and categorical erorr.

    For reference

    > optimization = the selection of a best element, with regard to some criteria, from some set of available alternatives

    What's the selection selecting from, what's evolution evolving towards?

    Moreover, you motivate with conservation. Conservation is an optimization criterion.

    15. ◴[24 Sep 25 06:34 UTC] No.45357019{4}[source]▶
    16. emmelaich ◴[24 Sep 25 07:49 UTC] No.45357485{5}[source]▶
    Perhaps it's an over-anthrophormic term.