Game of Life

Discussions concerned with knowledge of measurement, properties, and relations quantities, theoretical or applied.

Game of Life

Postby vivian maxine on April 30th, 2016, 8:40 am 

Has anyone played John Horton Conway's Game of Life? It sounds intriguing. I read about it in an article by Nick Bostrom here: https://www.edge.org/memberbio/nick_bostrom Do a search for "The Game of Life - And Looking for Generators".

Part of a quote from Nick Bostrom says "it's a cellular automaton invented by the British mathematician John Horton Conway in 1970. There is a grid and you seed part of the grid with live cells. "Then you let the system evolve according to three simple rules."

"It's a brilliant demonstration platform for several important concepts -- a virtual philosophy of science laboratory.'" Nick Bostrom has a list of concepts that the game helps the player to develop: emergent complexity, basic dynamics, and others.

A better explanation would come from the article than from me. What he does not say is how to find the game but I imagine the curious can do that. If anyone has played the game, is it all Mr. Bostrom (and, according to NB, Daniel Dennett) say it is?
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Game of Life

Postby Braininvat on April 30th, 2016, 10:05 am 

I suspect Dave_Oblad will have posted many times on this. I don't have a link handy, sorry. Bostrom is right, it's a wonderful way to learn about emergent complexity.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5834
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Game of Life

Postby vivian maxine on April 30th, 2016, 10:18 am 

Braininvat » April 30th, 2016, 9:05 am wrote:I suspect Dave_Oblad will have posted many times on this. I don't have a link handy, sorry. Bostrom is right, it's a wonderful way to learn about emergent complexity.


I had a feeling it might be here. I did skim down a distance but didn't see it. No time to do all the pages. I do want to look up emergent complexity and the others to see what they are. I don't think I need to go looking for the game. I am quite sure it would mean nothing to me. I'd probably break it. Thanks for your reply. I'll bet Search will bring up Dave's posts. Would be interesting to see what he thought.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Game of Life

Postby Dave_Oblad on April 30th, 2016, 4:11 pm 

Hi Vivian,

For a number of inter-related reasons, I've come to the conclusion that our Reality is a Type of Cellular Automaton. Conway's Life Simulation is an excellent gateway into exploring that aspect. I don't say we exist inside Conway's Life program because it is just 2D and just 2 slices of Time. Our Reality is of a much higher form, 4D and a huge number of Time Slices. The rules it obeys (I believe) more closely resemble a 4D Neuron Network. (This implies the whole Universe could be a Self-Aware Cosmic Mind.)

Anyway, my repeated position here on this Forum is that our Universe is made of Math, and Conway's Program (not really a Game BTW) has been useful in demonstrating many such aspects.

Anyway.. here is a link to what Biv was referring to that provides links to free downloads of many neat programs, including Conway's Program:
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=51&t=29824&start=30#p292796

I also provided several other interesting links there to acquire some top notch programs to play with. Here is a simple sample of Gosper's Gun. I use it to demonstrate a 2D Photon Generator (called Gliders in Conway's Program). The top is an oscillating pattern (Particle) producing an endless stream of Gliders (2D Photons)



There are a huge number of various fascinating Conway simulations on YouTube.. worth watching if you don't want to play with the real program itself.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Game of Life

Postby vivian maxine on April 30th, 2016, 4:23 pm 

thank you, Dave. I'll not attempt to play the game. I'm quite sure it would be far over my head. I just found the little article interesting and was sure some here knew about it. The author does say that it is not really a game. The fact that it helps develop understandings is good. Quite a few steps beyond my solitaire game that I use to relax.

I have heard that idea of the whole universe being a self-aware cosmic mind. An intriguing idea. As for the universe being made of math, all I can say is ??????. <g>

Thanks again. I'll follow up on the links later and maybe find something of interest. One never knows. Have a good evening.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Game of Life

Postby zetreque on April 30th, 2016, 9:43 pm 

There is a whole series of videos with John Conway himself that are very interesting.

Link to his playlist on numberphile channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8kUJL04ELA&list=PLt5AfwLFPxWIL8XA1npoNAHseS-j1y-7V
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Game of Life

Postby vivian maxine on May 1st, 2016, 9:06 am 

Thanks to you, also, zetreque. I'm playing catch-up but I'll get there.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Game of Life

Postby vivian maxine on May 1st, 2016, 2:22 pm 

zetreque » April 30th, 2016, 8:43 pm wrote:There is a whole series of videos with John Conway himself that are very interesting.

Link to his playlist on numberphile channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8kUJL04ELA&list=PLt5AfwLFPxWIL8XA1npoNAHseS-j1y-7V


I don't know where he is going with his games but John Conway is a study in himself. Have his games contributed to things scientists want to know before they attempt their daring ideas - like going to Mars?

And, speaking of going to Mars, have you read Moving Mars? In it they did have an underground city with atmosphere.

Thank you for the link.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Game of Life

Postby vivian maxine on May 1st, 2016, 2:35 pm 

Dave_Oblad » April 30th, 2016, 3:11 pm wrote:Hi Vivian,

For a number of inter-related reasons, I've come to the conclusion that our Reality is a Type of Cellular Automaton. Conway's Life Simulation is an excellent gateway into exploring that aspect. I don't say we exist inside Conway's Life program because it is just 2D and just 2 slices of Time. Our Reality is of a much higher form, 4D and a huge number of Time Slices. The rules it obeys (I believe) more closely resemble a 4D Neuron Network. (This implies the whole Universe could be a Self-Aware Cosmic Mind.)

Anyway, my repeated position here on this Forum is that our Universe is made of Math, and Conway's Program (not really a Game BTW) has been useful in demonstrating many such aspects.

Anyway.. here is a link to what Biv was referring to that provides links to free downloads of many neat programs, including Conway's Program:
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=51&t=29824&start=30#p292796

I also provided several other interesting links there to acquire some top notch programs to play with. Here is a simple sample of Gosper's Gun. I use it to demonstrate a 2D Photon Generator (called Gliders in Conway's Program). The top is an oscillating pattern (Particle) producing an endless stream of Gliders (2D Photons)



There are a huge number of various fascinating Conway simulations on YouTube.. worth watching if you don't want to play with the real program itself.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)


Dave, I kept waiting for Rise Stevens to join in on that last melody but it got ahead of her. Thanks
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Game of Life

Postby Dave_C on May 1st, 2016, 4:13 pm 

Hi viv. Mark Bedau uses the GOL as an example of weak emergence because it follows the same philosophy as all of our computational models of classical systems such as those used in engineering for fluid flow, stress analysis, heat transfer, thermodynamics, ... etc... Also follows the same philosophy as neuroscience for example, by programs such as Genesis and Neuron. And weather models, astronomical models, etc... These models all follow the same type of rules that GOL follows, that of locality.

We could certainly make rules for the GOL that were nonlocal. All we'd need to do is to have one square depend on another square that is 2 or more squares away. That wasn't done, though I suspect people have created those kinds of rules just for fun. The fact Conway used a local set of rules for his game I think is quite intentional even if the importance of that feature isn't readily obvious.
User avatar
Dave_C
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: 08 Jun 2014
Location: Allentown


Re: Game of Life

Postby Dave_Oblad on May 2nd, 2016, 4:21 am 

Hi Dave-C,

Not only Non-Local, but with Temporal aspects being non-local. See, Conway's Sim requires two time slices, because the evolution of Geometry interferes with itself without time slices. In Conway's version, The old slice is erased and moved in front of the current slice, to be the next generation slice (then repeat). If there was no Auto-Erase, then there would have to be a continuous Growth of new blank surface slices for each next generation of Geometry to propagate to.

This would create an Arrow of Time and be manifested as a growing/expanding Matrix. We would need a substantial number of history layers (linked to the NOW generation) to provide a wide degree of Freedom in both Velocity and Directions that Geometry may adopt. Such Geometry would also have a natural speed limit that can't exceed the rate of Growth of new Blank Surface Time Slices.

Any of this sounding familiar? (lol)

Best Regards,

Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Game of Life

Postby zetreque on May 3rd, 2016, 1:55 pm 

John Conway's name coincidentally just came up in this video I was watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXHEsfedNB0

side note: having access to a 3d printer makes me have a list of things to print and not enough time :)
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Game of Life

Postby hyksos on December 22nd, 2016, 7:49 pm 

For dynamical systems with feedback like CA there is a large family of 'transition rules' which determine if the cell is on or off in the next cycle. Out of this large family of rule sets, most of them are highly ordered, or they are highly random ("chaotic".)

There are a few rules which lie in a razor-thin boundary between these two types of dynamics. They are right on the tiny border that separates orderliness from chaos. Conway's GOL is one of those rules.

Generally speaking, chaotic rules "grow forever" and orderly rules "die out". (these are very rough generalities).

Conway GOL is so precariously perched on the boundary between order and chaos, that merely turning on a random cell every cycle is enough to keep it going indefinitely. The flipping of a random cell from off to on need only be performed at a density of 0.000022727

That tiny number corresponds to turning on one random cell per 200x200 area of the grid.

Without this random perturbing , almost all (99.999%) of random initial states will "die out" to an attractor basin.

Mathematicians and computer scientists have come to notice certain peculiar properties among rules that are perched on this magical boundary. They are , firstly, extremely sensitive to initial conditions. A tiny change of a single cell value in the starting state could have a catastrophic effect on how the grid develops in the far future. Secondly, these special rules seem to always produce different kinds of walking "gliders". Gliders are isolated patterns that "walk" across the grid, carrying information from a cycle from the distance past, on into a present one.

This is already very fascinating stuff, (for people to geek out on). But the philosophical issues are equally interesting.

These types of systems are known to exhibit the capacity to perform universal computation, and are therefore said to be "Turing Complete". The interesting philosophical footnote is that these systems are impossible to predict by statistics or mathematics. Randomness is at the very least consistently random, always churning out patterns with equal probability over large time spans. So while the detailed states of a random lottery drawing are impossible to predict, the distribution of numbers are at least equal up to some particular average. Orderly rules are consistently orderly, and so are easy to predict. These "complex" rules --- Conway GOL being one example --- are neither of these things, or both at the same time.

This is scandalous if you think about it. Not even statisticians can reliably predict what this grid of cells is going to do.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Game of Life

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 23rd, 2016, 4:29 am 

Hi Hyksos,

We don't need randomness (and that's against mathematical laws anyway) to prevent extinction. If the rules link to their history and the rules lack symmetry, they can't die out. You also end up with gliders moving backwards and forwards in Time. And that's just 3D. In 4D we get 3D Gliders moving back and forth through Time (the 4th D).

If the rules state the exposed grid edges form new cells, then we have an expanding 4D Grid. The activity on the growing surface (edge) is 3D and has speed restrictions based on Growth Rate (Speed of Light).

For complex Geometries on the 3D surface.. they have an Arrow of Time by Growth (Relativity). But information passing back and forth through the 4D aspect makes for a 4D foundation (Quantum Mechanics). Since the information connecting past and present is only by Sequence, then Time in 4D is meaningless and can thus be instantaneous (No aspect of Duration) giving us Entanglement and other fun stuff.

This perfectly describes our Universe and has no true substance other than Math/Logic. It is completely deterministic because Math can not produce true Randomness. Features of such a construct are only limited by the Initial Pattern and Rule Set, which has no arbitrary limits.

It has a beginning, is open ended and requires no External Reality. As an Equation, it has the same right to Exist as pi. Any self-aware beings that evolve in the results have the same status of Existence as the billion(th) digit of pi. All Possible Universes based on such take up no Space and don't require the Existence of Time. They create their own internal version of Time. Ie. They don't overlap, don't crowd each other and all exist simultaneously. From each Universe's point of view, all other Universe Solutions are Instantaneous.

And this was what I said on my 2nd post at this site.. 5 years ago.

Sidebar: I came here as an Atheist. It occurs to me that Quantum Life could appear and evolve before Light appeared in the Universe. It occurs to me that the speed of the Quantum could make for very rapid evolution. It occurs to me that such Evolving Quantum Life might evolve into a Gestalt Mind, given the similarities between the Quantum Processing ability and Neurons. It occurs to me that such a Cosmic Mind could build structures within itself to Create Macro Chemistry.. Gravity.. Life.. and Intelligent Beings (making new friends). Thus, while I don't accept the Humanistic Bible, I can't rule out the Existence of an Evolved God that tweaks itself. So now days I find myself looking for aspects of our Reality that seem Contrived.

Best wishes my friend and Happy Holidays.
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Game of Life

Postby hyksos on December 23rd, 2016, 6:55 am 

If the rules link to their history and the rules lack symmetry, they can't die out.

These 'complex' rules perched on the edge of chaos can be made to never die out. It's easy. You just tweak the rule so that it falls on the chaotic side of the fence, as it were. If we go from S23/B2 -> S236/B2 by adding an additional survival on 6, we get a grid that grows forever.
growsforever.png


I'm open to the idea that our universe is a cellular automaton at the Planck scale. Whatever rule is down there, it is definitely one that that is reversible, and does not destroy information. The rules experimented with on computers are not reversible. We need lots of empty background for our eyes to make out what is happening. So all the interesting rules will map the majority of their patterns to a quiescent cell.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Game of Life

Postby neuro on December 23rd, 2016, 8:16 am 

Dave_Oblad » December 23rd, 2016, 9:29 am wrote:It occurs to me that such Evolving Quantum Life might evolve into a Gestalt Mind, given the similarities between the Quantum Processing ability and Neurons.


Dave, what would be such similarities, if I may?
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy


Re: Game of Life

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 23rd, 2016, 6:42 pm 

Hi Neuro,

A Cell in an Automaton processes inputs from other Cells and likewise feeds other Cells from its own status.

In a simple Automaton such status is usually just binary On-Off.
It doesn't have to be.

In a simple Automaton, connectivity is usually with just local neighbors.
It doesn't have to be.

A group of cells can perform any function desired:
1) Memory.
2) Processing.
3) Filtering.
4) Channeling.
5) Regulation.
6) Comparison.
7) Input.
8) Output.
9) Etc.

An Automaton can be a Computer.

My Hypothesis is that the Quantum is a Cellular Automaton at Planck Scales.
That patterns within it can evolve giving higher order emergent properties based on various persistent structures.

In other words, any function the Mind can perform can be coded in a proper Automaton.

The speed of the Quantum is so fast, that any attempt to capture a single state will be indeterminate. That's an obstacle that modern Physics is trying to overcome in Quantum Computing.

It is the hope of Quantum Computing to exploit this speed and do calculations that no formal computer could ever hope to match. If Quantum Computers evolve as fast as today's digital computers have, then tiny specs of such will out perform the human mind real soon. AI will manifest and we will no longer be the Masters. (IMHO)

Even today, Cellular Automatons are primitive and usually 2 dimensional.

If you want to play with one.. here is a sample of one's ability:
Golly.gif
A sample of spelling Golly by Computation.

If one thinks such are too fragile, look at the wall at the extreme left taking all those collisions.

And here is how to acquire one for free:
http://golly.sourceforge.net/

It's my favorite.. blazing speed and flexibility (and let's not forget.. free..lol).

If the whole Universe is a Quantum Computer at near infinite speeds and Planck sized resolution.. becoming self aware is not such a stretch..lol.

Einstein hated the idea that his Speed of Light limitation could be circumvented, hence their EPR paradox submission. But he was wrong.

I've also already proposed a solution to exploit such for practical FTL communications exploiting Quantum cloning. Turns out one can "clone" Quantum states with 5/6 accuracy. That's all I needed.

Sorry for deviations.

I hope I answered your question.

Happy Holidays,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Game of Life

Postby hyksos on December 26th, 2016, 8:10 pm 

That patterns within it can evolve giving higher order emergent properties based on various persistent structures.

In other words, any function the Mind can perform can be coded in a proper Automaton.

These two sentences are kind of peculiar to me, and needs to be fleshed out a little bit more. Your use of the word "evolve" here is bothering me. I guess I'm asking for more specific language.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Game of Life

Postby neuro on December 27th, 2016, 11:50 am 

Dave_Oblad » December 23rd, 2016, 11:42 pm wrote:A group of cells can perform any function desired:
1) Memory.
2) Processing.
3) Filtering.
4) Channeling.
5) Regulation.
6) Comparison.
7) Input.
8) Output.
9) Etc.

An Automaton can be a Computer.
My Hypothesis is that the Quantum is a Cellular Automaton at Planck Scales.


Thank you Dave.
This tells us that a cellular automaton can be a computer.
It also tells us that, according to your hypothesis, Quantum Processing may bear similarities to Cellular Automaton Processing.

All this still does not tell us anything about any similarity between Quantum Processing and Neurons.
Except, possibly, in terms of computational power.
Which, however, is far from being demonstrated as a sufficient condition for the emergence of a "Mind".
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy


Re: Game of Life

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 27th, 2016, 1:49 pm 

Hi Neuro and Hyksos,

The only thing (almost) I know about the Brain is that it is composed of a Network of Electro-Chemical Switches with conductor/connectors between such Switches. It has Input/Output/Long-Storage/Short-Storage/Filtering/Focus/etc.. too many to name them all. Chemistry has a strong influence over the processing that occurs. Call it Mood Control and, in itself, is a highly complex chemical balance affecting Filtering and Priorities. Close enough?

My Brother has a permanent imbalance in Brain Chemistry making him Paranoid and Dangerous. He takes Meds to keep and maintain this balance now. Without such, he could easily go "Postal" and attack any target he perceives as a threat.. which is just about anyone around him. It was one such instance that got him arrested and diagnosed. Around that time, extending backwards for years, he was very irrational, seeing meaning behind every trivial aspect of his surroundings. He had a huge Gun collection and started waving such around at his neighbors. Fortunately, he had enough cognitive intellect to see his predicament and surrender to authorities who had him evaluated and had his arsenal confiscated (before anyone got hurt).

Anyway, that is a rather long story.. not really relevant here beyond the recognition that Chemistry has a strong influence over our Rationality. Unless we introduce a simulacrum regulation into AI, as it's being developed, advanced AI will be nearly Emotionless and too Logical.. very Alien to our tastes.

A Cellular Automaton is also a Network of Logic Switches and connections.. minus the regulation of Chemistry. A Cosmic Mind is very feasible, but it doesn't just spring up complete.. it must evolve. It can't skip any steps from A to Z or Chaos to Intellect. I see no reason to believe the principles of basic Evolution are inherent in only Biological Systems. It would have to have started at very simple constructs which include Protective Isolation and Reproduction. Self reproduction has been achieved in simple Automatons.

Wiki wrote:Three years after Codd's work, Edwin Roger Banks showed a 4-state CA in his PhD thesis that was also capable of universal computation and construction, but again did not implement a self-reproducing machine. John Devore, in his 1973 masters thesis, tweaked Codd's rules to greatly reduce the size of Codd's design, to the extent that it could be implemented in the computers of that time. However, the data tape for self-replication was too long; Devore's original design was later able to complete replication using Golly.

My example, in my previous post, shows many facets of Memory, Switching, Channeling, Protection, Input and Output. What remains to be seen.. how can Automaton Life Forms arise from Chaos?

I'm afraid the answer to that is the Mystery of Life.. such as how did a bunch of Chemicals and some Energy produce living reproductive and protected Cells in the Earliest appearance of Life in our Oceans, not to mention the appearance of coded message strands (Rna/Dna) that are the cornerstone to Evolution. But when we have that answer, I'm betting the principles will apply to Quantum Life.

Is the human race destined to become a Gestalt Mind? If we step back and view Society as a whole today, we are already seeing this tendency to act as a single organism. Why do we have this strong compulsion to communicate with each other, all the time, as with Cell Phones, Tweets and the Internet? Look at any busy street and you will find a huge percentage of individuals with Phones stuck to their heads...lol.

If a Brain is a Network of Individual Cells, then can Humans form such a Network, each being a Cellular part of the Whole? Will we all Jack into the Internet with Google Glasses? Will we develop the technology to Implant such devices into our Brains, giving us an almost Telepathic ability to communicate, even at subconscious levels? What happens when the distinction of being individual cells and a cooperative intellect start to blur?

Of course, I've never given this much thought ;)

Regards and best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)
NoShips liked this post


Re: Game of Life

Postby neuro on December 27th, 2016, 2:17 pm 

I am depressed by all this, Dave.

If your point simply is that neurons compute, so anything that computes resembles neurons, then well, I certainly do agree.

However, when you say that Quantum Processing resembles Neurons, that suggest to me that you see some kind of analogy that is not there with other computing systems.

And I still cannot spot what such selective analogy would be.
I have the impression people bring about Quantum stuff when they have nothing interesting to say about a specific topic.

(please note that this is not against you, Dave, but against a lot of people, starting with Sir Eccles, former Great Scientist, who mumble-jumble about quantum stuff - and sometime use this to sell new theories or psychotherapeutic approaches or whatever - simply because nobody can demonstrate they are wrong; and such mumble-jumbling does not add a comma to what is already relatively clearly known...)
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy


Re: Game of Life

Postby Braininvat on December 27th, 2016, 2:28 pm 

However, when you say that Quantum Processing resembles Neurons, that suggest to me that you see some kind of analogy that is not there with other computing systems.
- Neuro

This is the analogy I also wonder about. There are many people who hold the entire universe to be some kind of quantum processor, but it's never clear what the substrate of the processor actually is. Is it a big block of silicon circuits, and we are just "inside" that, being simulated to each other?
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5834
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Game of Life

Postby vivian maxine on December 27th, 2016, 2:56 pm 

Some time back in the Dark Ages, I read an article by a (scientist? philosopher? historian? - I forget - some intellectual authority). The gentleman was saying that the universe is one gigantic computer and we live inside of it. We are the software obeying orders of the hardware. Wish I could remember what he said the hardware is. I wasn't buying it but that man really was being quite logical. Anyone who wanted to believe the theory would have had no problem after reading what he wrote. Persuasiveness can be quite effective in the hands of those who have the skill.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Game of Life

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 27th, 2016, 3:48 pm 

Hi Neuro,

Funny thing is I started with my Model, knowing virtually nothing about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I came here to test my Model, and in the process got a good dose of Relativity and, by links to papers, some Quantum Mechanics. So far, my Model has been very good at reconciling both aspects of our Reality. Quantum Mechanics doesn't seem weird at all to me, when I view such with my Model in Mind. It all fits together, like a big jigsaw puzzle, and the only pieces missing are are the exact coding rules for such an Automaton. I've tried a few simulations, but the whole expands so fast in complexity.. I wouldn't know a Photon if it bit me on the nose...lol.

Science blinds itself with preconceived notions, or preferences, about Time, Energy and Matter. It tends to set up rules that block advancement, such as the Creation of Time and Energy.

Ie. How can Time just simply start? How do we get Something from Nothing?

I didn't anticipate the potential for the Existence of a Cosmic Mind. I don't accept such as fact.. but I can't disregard the potential. Just another one of those fringe possibilities worth thinking about.

I foresee the potential for Technology to be able to Resurrect long dead actual people in VR. To actually explore our True History in minute detail. To explore the Inside of a real Black Hole safely from the home. To Visit and Communicate with Advanced Aliens across the Universe via VR and Quantum Technology. All these and more are built into my Model. All this latter stuff.. I only realized potentially existed within the last year or so. In a few decades we will be able to Create Matter and Energy of our own design and in any quantity for any use, including feeding the masses.

I had no clue this is where I would end up, when I first came here. Originally, I just wanted to understand Gravity (which I now do) so I could just build a spaceship and leave to explore the solar system...lol.

Now, I only hope to live long enough to see all this come about. The potential for misuse is extreme.. so I may just witness the end of us. That's why I am hoping for an Alien Intervention. I think we are too stupid to avoid our own destruction during this short singularity period.

If I'm right about a Cosmic Mind and Resurrection.. can I rule out the possibility of a VR "After Life" in the Quantum?

Anyway I cut it.. it will be a Grand Show.. worth the experience.
And downright entertaining too..lol.

BiV: The substrate of the processor is Math/Logic. A vacuum is not empty.. it is a Cellular Automaton (if I'm right). It is computing its own Existence. Think of going down to the Planck Length and finding it is composed of information processing switches (cells). It is clear to Matter and Energy.. hence it looks like it is empty, because Matter and Energy (etc) is the Information it is Processing. A structural Packet of information is a Particle. Are such switches tangibly real? No.. they are just part of the whole Math/Logic package.

Vivian: There is no Hardware to the Universe.. just Rules. If the Equation for Pi (3.1415..) can be said to Exist, then so can a Cellular Automaton Equation. If the Billionth digit of Pi can be said to Exist.. then your Existence holds the same status.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Game of Life

Postby hyksos on December 27th, 2016, 8:47 pm 

My understanding of this is that if you get a CA rule which is complex enough, then the "gliders" that it produces will play the role of fundamental particles. Gliders will collide, and the mess will spit out more gliders -- analogous to what the Large Hadron Collider does. We expect that the "glider dynamics" will come to mirror the particle creation and annihilation operators of quantum field theory.

Lately this idea was boosted again by the Holographic Principle. The physics inside a region of what we think is "space" is being computed by information that lies on the boundary of that space (in lower dimensions). People who are made up of this 'information' (who are the information) will perceive themselves in a 3D universe with gravity. Even though everything is actually made up of quantum bits on a surface.

It is worth noting that the CA rule which underlies our universe is definitely not Conway's Game of Life. It is some other kind of rule. If for no other reason, Conway GOL is not reversible. A universe made up of a rule that is not reversible would look very different than our universe. We would see wild violations of the conservation of energy. Energy would disappear all over the place. In other situations energy would be 'created' spontaneously. (In case anyone didn't get the memo: those things never happen in our universe).

Recent research in mathematical physics strongly suggests that distantly-separated cells effect each other through entanglement. (cf. It-from-Qubit )
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Game of Life

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 27th, 2016, 9:52 pm 

Hi Hyksos,

But for Entanglement, we can't exclude the possibility that the collapse of one particle's spin definition can send a Glider backwards in Time (the 4th dimension) to affect the counter part from their location of Origin. To us, it would look instantaneous.. because it involves Retro-Causality in a 4D Universe.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Game of Life

Postby hyksos on December 28th, 2016, 3:50 pm 

Dave O,

The state of the quantum bits on the boundary will be "very mixed up" -- something which Leonard Susskind has repeated many times. A single photon moving in a cold vacuum may be identifiable in the bits by human eye, and we would call it a 'glider'. Outside of that unusual scenario, the bits it would just look like static on a television tuned to a dead channel.

I recently read a paper about how the universe must necessarily be broken up into discrete bits, eventually at some level. The reason is because if we assume that fields are actually continuous, then they must also be able to hold an "infinite" amount of information. That doesn't really make any sense. See for example ,

"It from Qubit" ,
David Deutsch ,
Centre for Quantum Computation, The Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford
(2002)
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Game of Life

Postby vivian maxine on December 28th, 2016, 4:14 pm 

hyksos » December 28th, 2016, 2:50 pm wrote:Dave O,

The state of the quantum bits on the boundary will be "very mixed up" -- something which Leonard Susskind has repeated many times. A single photon moving in a cold vacuum may be identifiable in the bits by human eye, and we would call it a 'glider'. Outside of that unusual scenario, the bits it would just look like static on a television tuned to a dead channel.

I recently read a paper about how the universe must necessarily be broken up into discrete bits, eventually at some level. The reason is because if we assume that fields are actually continuous, then they must also be able to hold an "infinite" amount of information. That doesn't really make any sense. See for example ,

"It from Qubit" ,
David Deutsch ,
Centre for Quantum Computation, The Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford
(2002)


" "It From Qubit" -- "Tangled Up in Spacetime" by Clara Moskowitz in January Scientific American - which i am sure you already know. Is it pertinent here? I did not read much of it as it is over my head. What caught my attention was: "Perhaps what we think of as gravity and spacetime is just another way of looking at the end product of entanglement"

Apologies if you didn't need that. As I said, I do not much understand talk of spacetime. Entanglement I do, a bit.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Game of Life

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 28th, 2016, 4:55 pm 

Hi all,

The issue with GOL is that Gliders and Spaceships have very limited freedom of Direction and Velocity. But if we increase the number of Time slices (never erase history) and connect the Now geometry to its history via some rules, then we can overcome this issue and gain greater freedom in both Direction and Velocity.

This comes closer to Smooth-Life and still only uses Logic without FP Math.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Game of Life

Postby hyksos on December 29th, 2016, 9:37 pm 

" "It From Qubit" -- "Tangled Up in Spacetime" by Clara Moskowitz in January Scientific American - which i am sure you already know. Is it pertinent here?


Yes. Same topic.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Next

Return to Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests