4 ms·
> the lack of formality makes the taxonomy appear somewhat arbitrary I thought it was empirical? E.g. sample Turing drawings: https://maximecb.github.io/Turin
by carapace 3y ago
> the lack of formality makes the taxonomy appear somewhat arbitrary
I thought it was empirical? E.g. sample Turing drawings: https://maximecb.github.io/Turing-Drawings/ https://maximecb.github.io/Turing-Drawings/
They clearly seem to me to fall into four kinds: Boring, Oscillating, Chaotic, Life.
- arketyp 3y agoThat's true. It's a convention. I thirst for an epistemological investigation, in turn, I suppose.
- carapace 3y agoThat's IMO a much more fascinating question. What does it mean that simple systems can exhibit "life"? The first three kinds of simple system are, um, pretty obvious: Boring is static, Oscillators have movement but are static in time so to speak, chaotic systems overwhelm themselves with too much movement, "living" systems seem to balance stasis and chaos. But what does it mean? ;)
- arketyp 3y agoExactly. Glad we share the same view.