[eu-gene] can a program be generative, interactive, creative?

[Michael Gogins]

Your example is a sequence of infinite length, but not one of infinite complexity. Infinite length is not infinite complexity. 

I am talking about infinite complexity. A truly random infinite series is of infinite complexity. A non-random infinite series is of finite complexity. Quantum randomness is truly random and, if universal, is of potentially infinite length and therefore of infinite complexity. A universe featuring quantum randomness is therefore not computable. 

The business about complexity and randomness is standard complexity theory and theoretical computer science, not controversial in the least. The question whether the universe does in fact feature quantum randomness and the relation of this situation to complexity theory is a current research topic in physics and in the philosophy of science. The question is open but the experts take it very, very seriously. Obviously, the scope and meaning of the scientific worldview hang in the balance.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
>From: Artem Baguinski <femistofel at gmail.com>
>Sent: Feb 21, 2006 8:01 AM
>To: generative art <eu-gene at generative.net>
>Subject: Re: [eu-gene] can a program be generative, interactive, creative?
>
>
>On 21 Feb 2006, at 06:37, Michael Gogins wrote:
>
>> There is a deeper question inside this, whether Turing machines can  
>> effectively model natural law. The answer to this is probably no,  
>> since quantum theory predicts true randomness in natural phenomena,  
>> which lies beyond the ability of any program to compute (see  
>> Chaitin's Omega). Finite programs can only be pseudo-random.
>
>Are you claiming to be infinite then?
>
>here you go:
>
>10 INPUT "Enter something: "; X$
>20 PRINT "Something: "; X$
>30 GOTO 10
>
>finite program implementing infinite random output.
>
>"But", I hear you object, "it's not the program that generates the  
>random output, it's the user!"
>
>Well, I just made a system from the parts i had available - one  
>human, one BASIC interpreter, one conventional turing equivalent  
>computer.
>
>I could substitute parts of the system with something else - e.g.  
>write the program in assembly language, read the input from adc  
>connected to some noisy electronic cirtcuit, use a computer that  
>isn't turing equivalent.
>
>Starting with this simple example (well, I lie, but just for the sake  
>of argument) I codeveloped the initial version of Artificial  
>Paradises 0202[1] - a virtual machine that treats its various input  
>channels (audio, video, raw file system, network traffic, ...) as  
>source of data/code for programs running on it. This programs don't  
>exist until the VM receives any input. The programs modify the VM's  
>memory (including each other and themselves, since VM has von  
>Neumann's architecture and data and code reside in the same memory)  
>and generate output (visuals, audio, ...). The computer it runs on,  
>the VM itself and any program that may run on it are completelly  
>deterministic, but because of the inherent complexity of the inputs  
>the behaviours generated were hard to predict in the beginning.
>
>After some time though you could learn the potential repertuar of the  
>system (after all it only had 16 instructions, including NOP) and,  
>although you couldn't predict what will happen next, you wouldn't be  
>surprised when it happened.
>
>I dare to say this program was constantly generating something NEW,  
>within the constraints of its "world". The fact that the mapping of  
>the inputs to the outputs and mapping of the input to the mapping  
>itself (somebody told in the thread that programs don't go to the  
>meta level? well this one does) is deterministic doesn't mean  
>nothing, where is your proof that your mind is non deterministic?
>
>The new behaviours that the AP0202 generates are determined by its  
>inputs, just like the paintings are determined by the impressions of  
>the artist. Our creative mind would not be such if it wasn't  
>connected to the rest of our body. And even together they won't be  
>creative if they spent their life in a closed barrel. And just like  
>you can't be creative without the environment, the machine needs it  
>to be creative (or to simulate creativity, although for me there is  
>NO distinction) too.
>
>Hence the wikipeadia's
>
>QUOTE
>
>2. Interactive/Behavioural: music generated by a system component  
>that ostensibly has no inputs. That is, 'not transformational' (Rowe  
>1991; Lippe 1997:34; Winkler 1998).
>
>UNQUOTE
>
>may sound almost void, if it weren't for "ostensibly".
>
>What that word wants to say is that the inputs are there, but the  
>authour doesn't find it iportant to draw attention to them. When we  
>call a piece "generative" or "interactive" we just mean that we find  
>important certain its aspects (e.g. apparent lack of I->O  
>transformation or reaction to spectator's actions), while almost or  
>completely ignoring others. It isn't like there's some Department of  
>True Meanings of Words which has to approve the use of "interactive",  
>"generative", "random" or "conscious".
>
>[1]: http://1010.co.uk/ap0202.html
>
>-- 
>'Douglas Hofstadter believes he is a strange loop, and who am I to disagree?'
>To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
>http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene