3 ms·

If there is life in cellular automata, is it brought to life by symbolically representing it with voltage differences in a computer, or is it alive whether we r

by zardo 10y ago

If there is life in cellular automata, is it brought to life by symbolically representing it with voltage differences in a computer, or is it alive whether we run the simulation or not? I think the second makes more sense, the implication is that a simulation world need not be simulated at all. It's just as real inside if it isn't symbolically represented somewhere else as if it is, and ending the calculation of state transitions doesn't change what the next state is.

3pt14159 10y ago
Especially with things like Hash Life. It really bleeds across into philosophy. This concept is explored in a book I recently recommended on HN. Permutation City. You'd probably get a kick out of it.
jjoonathan 10y ago
If I can't interact with it, whether I think it is alive or not is moot, and it might make sense to capture that fact in the definition.
- zardo 10y ago
  In the definition of life? I'm not sure... It seems like a very anthropocentric definition. Isn't it enough to observe it interacting with the things it can interact with, and base the level of aliveness on that?
  - jjoonathan 10y ago
    Definitions exist to serve us, not the other way around, so anthropocentricity isn't exactly a sin. If we base our definition of life on observed interactions, we reacquire the same problems we had before, where we have difficulty deciding whether or not deceased ancestors / fictional characters / miscellaneous accidental Turing machines are alive. To be sure, a restricted subset of observed interactions are good proxies for determining life: if I see a bird interacting with a worm outside the window, it's a good bet that I could get up and scare it off / put out birdseed / etc, but I'd argue that if you tease out the restrictions required to define the subset of observed interactions that constitute life you're liable to find yourself right back at the interaction definition.

by zardo 10y ago

3pt14159 10y ago

Especially with things like Hash Life. It really bleeds across into philosophy. This concept is explored in a book I recently recommended on HN. Permutation City. You'd probably get a kick out of it.

jjoonathan 10y ago

If I can't interact with it, whether I think it is alive or not is moot, and it might make sense to capture that fact in the definition.

zardo 10y ago
In the definition of life? I'm not sure... It seems like a very anthropocentric definition. Isn't it enough to observe it interacting with the things it can interact with, and base the level of aliveness on that?
- jjoonathan 10y ago
  Definitions exist to serve us, not the other way around, so anthropocentricity isn't exactly a sin. If we base our definition of life on observed interactions, we reacquire the same problems we had before, where we have difficulty deciding whether or not deceased ancestors / fictional characters / miscellaneous accidental Turing machines are alive. To be sure, a restricted subset of observed interactions are good proxies for determining life: if I see a bird interacting with a worm outside the window, it's a good bet that I could get up and scare it off / put out birdseed / etc, but I'd argue that if you tease out the restrictions required to define the subset of observed interactions that constitute life you're liable to find yourself right back at the interaction definition.