Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!dcl-cs!aber-cs!athene!aro From: aro@sibyl (Andy Ormsby) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: computer life? Message-ID: Date: 15 Mar 91 16:43:14 GMT References: <2179@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> <1991Mar11.165932.19507@news.larc.nasa.gov> <4149@aipna.ed.ac.uk> <1991Mar13.225321.14042@Think.COM> Sender: cho@aber-cs.UUCP Reply-To: aro@cs.aber.ac.uk (Andrew Ormsby) Distribution: eunet,world Organization: /home/rrg/repair/part_a/aro/.organization Lines: 26 Nntp-Posting-Host: sibyl In-reply-to: kurt@think.com's message of 13 Mar 91 22:53:21 GMT Nntp-posting-host: sibyl In article <1991Mar13.225321.14042@Think.COM> kurt@think.com (Kurt Thearling) writes: > You might be interested in "Self-Reproducing Automata and the Origin of > Life," Robert C. Newman, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, > vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 24-31. In this article the self-reproducing automaton > designed by Chris Langton is analyzed to show that life is designed. Though for an alternative view, Richard Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" advocates evolution as sufficient explanation for the existence of a huge variety of complex lifeforms. > Newman computes the time to required consider all of the possible designs > for such a self-reproducing automaton. This time is (in his estimate) > 3 * 10**139 years. He then assumes that the universe is 20 billion years > old to determine that the probablility of producing the self-reproducing > automaton via random formation is 10**-129. Advocates of the anthropic principle might argue that the probabilities are not really the issue. The fact that we are able to observe our own existence makes our own existence an established fact. I'm not sure I believe this, but the argument has an attractive circularity to it. Andrew Ormsby aro@cs.aber.ac.uk Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Research Group, Department of Computer Science, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 3BZ, Wales.