4 ms·

I'm actually working on a project that explores the concept of information storage / movement duality to create life. https://scrollto.com/life-a-universe-simu

I'm actually working on a project that explores the concept of information storage / movement duality to create life. https://scrollto.com/life-a-universe-simulation/ https://scrollto.com/life-a-universe-simulation/ Send an email to the address listed in my profile if you'd like to be a part of the project.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
I have some (radically) different opinions on what would make for a useful simulation, and questions about decisions you made -- would you be open to discussing the project in abstract with people who didn't necessarily want to join yours, but have a general interest in the topic?
- goldenkey 10y ago
  Sure, what questions do you have?
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    In no particular order: Why Turing completeness? In particular, you're not going to be able to realize the execution of an arbitrary Turing machine, so why not restrict to a subset you can actually compute and do your modeling in that non-complete framework? I don't think you can complete the torus in x, y, t (as there's no way to close the time dimensionl, so why not use a structure that is dimensionally symmetric? Similarly, hexagonal prism tiling is strange -- why not a tiling that is x, y, t symmetric? Do you actually even want it to be "imperative" time, where you're stepping the simulation in clock cycles? Why not look for 3D universes that satisfy a set of constraints? (This might let you use a symmetric torus.) I sort of get the lack of boundary, but why not simulate that in an "infinite" space rather than a closed one? Wouldn't this allow a more tractable simulation? Why conservation laws? How do you plan to enact them? If you have a discussion page, it might work better to talk about it there, since I think some of these questions get fairly involved.
    - goldenkey 10y ago
      1) Turing completeness is necessary for intelligent life. The Church-Turing [1] thesis initially defined turing machines in terms of what a person could do with endless paper and pencils. Effectively, we are turing machines that consume energy in order to remain stable, compute, and reproduce. We of course, are possibly more than that -- but turing completeness is a base property that seems like it should be met. With the right information storage/movement principles, any calculation should be possible, which would trivially realize turing completeness without it being contrived -- it would be natural emergence. 2) The hexagonal tessellation on the torus is just the space. Not time. Time is the standard cellular automata clock ticks, where at t+1, every cell gets replaced with a new value, atomically. Every cell's new value depends upon its 6 immediate neighbors, and itself. This is not only parallelizable but also preserves locality. 3) 3D universes can come later. They are much more complex. This universe will be built iteratively. If 2d doesn't peel out, or it seems like 3d will improve it in some way, then it's not out of the question. 4) An infinite space without gravity has issues with conservation laws. A particle can fly off into space, never interact, and basically be "lost" as an outlier. With respect to our universe, the possible topologies are infinite euclidean plane, like you mention, or a boundaryless topology so large, that it appears flat at small scales. The torus isn't being used now anyhow. Since I restarted the project, I ended up going with a flat hexagonal tessellation that wraps at the edges like an Asteroids game. It's much simpler for now. 5) Conservation laws are necessary. In our universe, the speed of light is the speed of causality - its the speed of information movement. Yet the same thing that moves at the maximum speed of the universe, also provides the potential to keep things stable and at rest. This duality between stationary and moving information is why computation can happen. Too chaotic, and computation is easy to do, but results hard to retain. Too simple, and computation is hard to do, but results easy to retain. One needs a medium ground between these two. In any case, conservation laws make sure that no information storage is lost or gained - and that is effectively conservation of energy. It keeps computation requirements linear with the initial abstraction of mass the universe is started with. Comments are welcome on the blog post. I will be putting up a github repository shortly but the code is changing very rapidly at the moment due to design decisions, so I don't wish to put it up yet -- it would just be a disservice to those interested. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing_thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing_thesis
ozy 10y ago
I like your project. I've done a life simulator myself: http://leverlabs.io/blog20160714/ http://leverlabs.io/blog20160714/ Would really want to see a simulator that allows for self copying, but does not provide that copying mechanism directly.
- goldenkey 10y ago
  That's really cool. I see how you sort of built in decay through age. I think the golden information principles for emergent life are easier to find than biological ones, but of course the requirements of space, time, etc are much larger when ones' simulation is at a lower level of abstraction. It really is a question of level of emergent behavior versus level of base behavior. Even QM can be emergent from deterministic automata. [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548
  - ozy 10y ago
    I have tried a few approaches at not having the simulator provide the copying function. But so far no luck. Do you have any concrete ideas? I would suggest it needs to be a simulation in which self-organisation is possible. But also catalyzation and self-catalyzation (autocatalysis)[1]. From there it is a small step to self-copying and thus ... evolution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis
    - goldenkey 10y ago
      Reproduction for RNA/DNA and cells, and later multicellular life, is an emergent property of some heavy-handed universal laws. I would suggest forgetting about reproduction and focusing on principles of information storage and movement. Computation is really the cornerstone of reproduction. In any large enough space that allows computation, computers will pop up that copy themselves. By chance. They will then dominate if their resource requirements allow them to. That's the ticket. Emergent reproduction.
      - ozy 10y ago
lightlazer 10y ago
So you are going to try build the Autoverse in Permutation City? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City
- goldenkey 10y ago
  In some respects but consciousness is unknown with regard to it. I am defining life as intelligent computing machines that remain stable through consumption of their environment. Whether or not the life created is conscious is a deep question. Consciousness is a hard problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

I have some (radically) different opinions on what would make for a useful simulation, and questions about decisions you made -- would you be open to discussing the project in abstract with people who didn't necessarily want to join yours, but have a general interest in the topic?

goldenkey 10y ago
Sure, what questions do you have?
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  In no particular order: Why Turing completeness? In particular, you're not going to be able to realize the execution of an arbitrary Turing machine, so why not restrict to a subset you can actually compute and do your modeling in that non-complete framework? I don't think you can complete the torus in x, y, t (as there's no way to close the time dimensionl, so why not use a structure that is dimensionally symmetric? Similarly, hexagonal prism tiling is strange -- why not a tiling that is x, y, t symmetric? Do you actually even want it to be "imperative" time, where you're stepping the simulation in clock cycles? Why not look for 3D universes that satisfy a set of constraints? (This might let you use a symmetric torus.) I sort of get the lack of boundary, but why not simulate that in an "infinite" space rather than a closed one? Wouldn't this allow a more tractable simulation? Why conservation laws? How do you plan to enact them? If you have a discussion page, it might work better to talk about it there, since I think some of these questions get fairly involved.
  - goldenkey 10y ago
    1) Turing completeness is necessary for intelligent life. The Church-Turing [1] thesis initially defined turing machines in terms of what a person could do with endless paper and pencils. Effectively, we are turing machines that consume energy in order to remain stable, compute, and reproduce. We of course, are possibly more than that -- but turing completeness is a base property that seems like it should be met. With the right information storage/movement principles, any calculation should be possible, which would trivially realize turing completeness without it being contrived -- it would be natural emergence. 2) The hexagonal tessellation on the torus is just the space. Not time. Time is the standard cellular automata clock ticks, where at t+1, every cell gets replaced with a new value, atomically. Every cell's new value depends upon its 6 immediate neighbors, and itself. This is not only parallelizable but also preserves locality. 3) 3D universes can come later. They are much more complex. This universe will be built iteratively. If 2d doesn't peel out, or it seems like 3d will improve it in some way, then it's not out of the question. 4) An infinite space without gravity has issues with conservation laws. A particle can fly off into space, never interact, and basically be "lost" as an outlier. With respect to our universe, the possible topologies are infinite euclidean plane, like you mention, or a boundaryless topology so large, that it appears flat at small scales. The torus isn't being used now anyhow. Since I restarted the project, I ended up going with a flat hexagonal tessellation that wraps at the edges like an Asteroids game. It's much simpler for now. 5) Conservation laws are necessary. In our universe, the speed of light is the speed of causality - its the speed of information movement. Yet the same thing that moves at the maximum speed of the universe, also provides the potential to keep things stable and at rest. This duality between stationary and moving information is why computation can happen. Too chaotic, and computation is easy to do, but results hard to retain. Too simple, and computation is hard to do, but results easy to retain. One needs a medium ground between these two. In any case, conservation laws make sure that no information storage is lost or gained - and that is effectively conservation of energy. It keeps computation requirements linear with the initial abstraction of mass the universe is started with. Comments are welcome on the blog post. I will be putting up a github repository shortly but the code is changing very rapidly at the moment due to design decisions, so I don't wish to put it up yet -- it would just be a disservice to those interested. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing_thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing_thesis

ozy 10y ago

I like your project. I've done a life simulator myself: http://leverlabs.io/blog20160714/ http://leverlabs.io/blog20160714/ Would really want to see a simulator that allows for self copying, but does not provide that copying mechanism directly.

goldenkey 10y ago
That's really cool. I see how you sort of built in decay through age. I think the golden information principles for emergent life are easier to find than biological ones, but of course the requirements of space, time, etc are much larger when ones' simulation is at a lower level of abstraction. It really is a question of level of emergent behavior versus level of base behavior. Even QM can be emergent from deterministic automata. [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548
- ozy 10y ago
  I have tried a few approaches at not having the simulator provide the copying function. But so far no luck. Do you have any concrete ideas? I would suggest it needs to be a simulation in which self-organisation is possible. But also catalyzation and self-catalyzation (autocatalysis)[1]. From there it is a small step to self-copying and thus ... evolution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis
  - goldenkey 10y ago
    Reproduction for RNA/DNA and cells, and later multicellular life, is an emergent property of some heavy-handed universal laws. I would suggest forgetting about reproduction and focusing on principles of information storage and movement. Computation is really the cornerstone of reproduction. In any large enough space that allows computation, computers will pop up that copy themselves. By chance. They will then dominate if their resource requirements allow them to. That's the ticket. Emergent reproduction.
    - ozy 10y ago

lightlazer 10y ago

So you are going to try build the Autoverse in Permutation City? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City

goldenkey 10y ago
In some respects but consciousness is unknown with regard to it. I am defining life as intelligent computing machines that remain stable through consumption of their environment. Whether or not the life created is conscious is a deep question. Consciousness is a hard problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness