This shows how life is emergent from simple rules.
None of these simulated systems show replication evolving out of random rules though.
If you fully simulated RNA they would. Someone has already reproduced RNA that self-replicates.
Particle Life
71–80 of 97 posts
Re: Particle Life
#72I made a multithreaded Rust version of this (while learning Rust):
https://github.com/bezdomniy/rust_particles
you can run it with: cargo run --release
No input yet, just randomly initialises params each run. But it runs with 4000 particles on my machine.
Re: Particle Life
#73This is the most interesting one I generated: https://hunar4321.github.io/particle-life/particle_life.html... It eventually settles down to one large and unstable blob and another stable. Neither move so that's it. But before that it did what I had expected to see with objects meeting and merging
Tagging along: https://hunar4321.github.io/particle-life/particle_life.html... This one is really fun for me. It has a lot of actions and good shapes.
This one is really dynamic: https://hunar4321.github.io/particle-life/particle_life.html...
Re: Particle Life
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no reason to believe life is particularly rare in the universe either, though.
There are, in fact, reasons to believe that. Nothing definitive of course. But the fact that we haven't been absorbed by a von neumann swarm or something like it places strict limits on the prevalence of life and/or what stages that life can achieve. One would either have to belive that intelligent life is vastly less likely than non-intelligent life, or that life itself is quite rare, or that life simply hasn't been…
> the fact that we haven't been absorbed by a von neumann swarm or something
Haven't we been? When I look all around, the whole place is simply crawling with self-replicating machines and some of them even got to a point of making first attempts to leave this planet to infect a new one.
Re: Particle Life
#75There is also https://exophysics.codeberg.page/ which turns particles into moving creatures.
Re: Particle Life
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any "sustaining" in the simulation? Is death a possibility? If not, then there is no "sustaining".
There was no death for the original life. Rotting is caused by living organisms. Being eaten is caused by living organisms. Disease is caused by living organisms. They could not die until death evolved. They could be physically destroyed but that’s not that likely.
Interesting thought. But how could death evolve when death is a prerequisite for evolution? I suppose death is a "soft" prerequisite.
Re: Particle Life
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read them differently. >> I have a feeling that such a system would grind to a halt even with clever optimizations. I took this to mean that they thought there was no falloff calculated at all. If there is, I don't see why substituting a different function, e.g. cube vs square, would be significantly more CPU-intensive.
You focused on just one clause. Consider the whole: 1) Three dimensions, not two. Therefore distance is not the square root of (delta-x * delta-x + delta-y * delta-y) but the cube root of (delta-x * delta-x + delta-y * delta-y + delta-z * delta-z). More operations. 2) Three dimensions, not two. As you start increasing the number of dimensions, the simulation feels more and more empty. One hundred particles on a line…
> 1) Three dimensions, not two. Therefore distance is not the square root of (...) but the cube root of (...).
No, it is still a square root. The term under the root is correct, but distance in N dimensions (assuming euclidian space) is just sqrt(sum(delta-n ^ 2))
Re: Particle Life
#78The project is quite cool. I found myself tweaking for some good amount of time.
But the thing is it does not demonstrate that complexity can come from simplicity. To make a 'life' there are 8 parameters to be modified across a range and 'fine tuned' to get some tangible stable complex structure, all to be done by already conscious beings ( Users anyone? ). So much for simplicity
Re: Particle Life
#79I found a pretty fun set of rules: make a cycle of -0.4 between the colours (eg G->R, R->Y, Y->B, B->G in 3d or G->R, R->O, O->C, C->G in 2d) and set the other factors to 0.1.
The particles form semi-stable rotating rings until they get too close to another ring. It's quite fascinating to watch. Messing with the viscosity changes the stability and radius of the rings
Re: Particle Life
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
You focused on just one clause. Consider the whole: 1) Three dimensions, not two. Therefore distance is not the square root of (delta-x * delta-x + delta-y * delta-y) but the cube root of (delta-x * delta-x + delta-y * delta-y + delta-z * delta-z). More operations. 2) Three dimensions, not two. As you start increasing the number of dimensions, the simulation feels more and more empty. One hundred particles on a line…
> 1) Three dimensions, not two. Therefore distance is not the square root of (...) but the cube root of (...). No, it is still a square root. The term under the root is correct, but distance in N dimensions (assuming euclidian space) is just sqrt(sum(delta-n ^ 2))
Hah, you're right. Serves me for typing late at night.