Live data from Hacker News

Particle Life

github.com

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Particle Life

#81
Very cool -- shame I don't have a wall TV to just run it on. I was however, disappointed -- I saw it as a T-shirt brand "Particle Life" for physicists. The T-shirts would have slogans such as "After listening to you, I realize you're just an unfortunate jiggle in the quantum field, so I feel totally justified in ignoring everything you say"

Re: Particle Life

#82
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That seems like a valid belief. Its not at all clear in general. It might be true. But it also might not. It seems quite reasonable to believe that life inevitably evolves into intelligent life if given enough time. Why some life would and some life wouldn't isn't at all clear. > advanced species may have evolved several times but gone extinct before we could notice them. All the potential answers to the Fermi Para…

> It seems quite reasonable to believe that life inevitably evolves into intelligent life if given enough time. From what we have seen on Earth, it does not seem inevitable. Dinosaurs were the largest land animals for a very long time and they did not, as far as we know, evolve towards being more intelligent. The same seems to be true for many other animal groups that have been around for a long time.

They don't seem to have created any technology, but it is hard to know how intelligent they were. Their brains were small, but crows have quite small brains and they are relatively intelligent. If dinosaurs had used tools, would this show up in the fossil record?

Re: Particle Life

#84
That's impressive.

I had a similar concept in mind when I started experimenting in 3D with what I now call "Altphy" (alternative physics), but I've not been able to really make it work as intended (really, is far from working). Also probably the logic and idea behind it too much for real time processing. I'm sharing it only because maybe pieces of that code (or the idea itself) can progress into something one day.

source: https://github.com/aDeveloperCase/altphy

Re: Particle Life

#85
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you made a point about that, it was not clear to me. Perhaps you were implying that simple life could be very common even if intelligent life isn't. While yes, that is a possibility, that says nothing of its probability. Were that the circumstance, it leaves the question open as to why simple life would be common but intelligent life not common.

I'm just a bit confused as to why the subject of intelligent life is the focus here, considering the context of this post is basic cellular life. As to why simple life would be more common than complex life... that seems obvious to me: simple systems are easier to emerge from chaos than complex ones.

From a cellular perspective, human cells are not really more complex than smaller multi-cellular organisms like amoebas.

Give the huge advantage that intelligence has for natural selection in complex environments, why would intelligent life not arise from simple life? It's not obvious.

Re: Particle Life

#86
Mixing up Conway's game with colorful 'genes' is pretty wild, like coding with a rainbow palette. And about those blobs – it's like they're putting on their own little drama show, then just decide to chill. Also, gotta love the action and cool shapes in that simulation. It's like a mini superhero movie, but with shapes instead of characters.

Re: Particle Life

#87
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That seems like a valid belief. Its not at all clear in general. It might be true. But it also might not. It seems quite reasonable to believe that life inevitably evolves into intelligent life if given enough time. Why some life would and some life wouldn't isn't at all clear. > advanced species may have evolved several times but gone extinct before we could notice them. All the potential answers to the Fermi Para…

> It seems quite reasonable to believe that life inevitably evolves into intelligent life if given enough time. From what we have seen on Earth, it does not seem inevitable. Dinosaurs were the largest land animals for a very long time and they did not, as far as we know, evolve towards being more intelligent. The same seems to be true for many other animal groups that have been around for a long time.

> it does not seem inevitable

The belief that intelligent life isn't inevitable is not inconsistent with the belief that intelligent life usually will happen from any life given enough time. Why are you positioning those things as opposed? They are not.

Re: Particle Life

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are a number of possibilities, which depends upon what methods of interaction we are looking at. For example, with direct contact, we can estimate a probability of life along side how possible space travel is. Perhaps space travel isn't easy or fast at all and so there is plenty of life, but it is mostly stuck to its solar systems and maybe a few neighboring stars. Overall, given that we can send and receive si…

> Perhaps space travel isn't easy or fast at all

Except we have excellent knowledge about lower bounds on how easy and fast space travel can be. And its plenty fast enough to explore the entire galaxy on geological timescales. Voyager 1 is traveling at 17 km/s which would take it 1 light year every 17,700 years. Given that the galaxy is 100,000 light years across, that means that Voyager 1 could travel across the galaxy in 1.7 billion years. A spaceship built for that purpose would take vastly less time.

Voyager weighed less than 800 kg. Using the [rocket equation](https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/ideal-rocket-equation) and a realistic exhaust velocity for methane/oxygen of 3280 m/s, you can see that you could accelerate a voyager 1 sized craft to 3000 m/s with about 1200 kg of fuel, which is less than $1 of fuel, no joke (https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2022/02/spacex-reusable-rocket...). Of course it takes a lot of money to just get that fuel into orbit: $1500/kg with a falcon heavy. But that means you could send a voyager-1-sized craft to space with the fuel it needs to achieve 3000 km/s for a mere $3 million (not including the cost of the craft itself). And harvesting methane and oxygen on smaller planets would bring down that cost by a lot.

At that speed, the craft could cross the entire galaxy in 9.6 million years. A blink of an eye on geological timescales. And if we really cared enough to spend more than a couple million dollars on this thing, we could get it there orders of magnitude faster using propulsion systems way less shitty than a methane-oxygen rocket.

With just 1% of the energy the sun outputs in a single second, you could accelerate 100 voyager 1s to 1% the speed of light.

In short, if you think space travel is a barrier, you're plainly very wrong. Even with today's technology we could send machines throughout the galaxy in a pretty short period of time. In the near future, that time will drastically reduce.

> we can send and receive signals much easier than we can send and receive space crafts

And yet there are vastly larger motivations for sending a spacecraft than sending a signal. You might not be aware that nearly all radio signals that escape the earth are not powerful enough to be detectable above noise further than 1/2 a light year out. https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/33939/when-do-...

There's no reason to believe we should be able to detect alien radio signals unless they are intentionally aimed at us and meant for us. Also, you can't see a radio signal that passed by 1 million years ago. Whereas you certainly would be able to see evidence of a von neumann swarm having done that.

> Say only 2 or 3 planets in a given galaxy end up developing intelligent life, is that rare?

Whether anyone would consider that "rare" or not is irrelevant. The puzzle would be: if even ONE intelligent speicies existed out there more than several million years ago, why haven't we seen evidence of their space craft?

> maybe intelligent life is common enough but it tends to rarely progress past a certain point of development due to wiping itself out

Yes, this is of course the premise of usual solutions to the fermi paradox. However, those solutions are often either "maybe nukes will destroy us" or "maybe something we don't know about yet will". Neither are super satisfactory as answers.

Re: Particle Life

#89
post #85
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just a bit confused as to why the subject of intelligent life is the focus here, considering the context of this post is basic cellular life. As to why simple life would be more common than complex life... that seems obvious to me: simple systems are easier to emerge from chaos than complex ones.

From a cellular perspective, human cells are not really more complex than smaller multi-cellular organisms like amoebas. Give the huge advantage that intelligence has for natural selection in complex environments, why would intelligent life not arise from simple life? It's not obvious.

> From a cellular perspective, human cells are not really more complex than smaller multi-cellular organisms like amoebas.

That's a very limited and poor perspective. Yes, individual human cells are no more complex than others, but that doesn't encompass the entire system that has to emerge. A human being is - obviously, I would think - a far more complex system than a simple amoeba.

Re: Particle Life

#90
post #89
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a cellular perspective, human cells are not really more complex than smaller multi-cellular organisms like amoebas. Give the huge advantage that intelligence has for natural selection in complex environments, why would intelligent life not arise from simple life? It's not obvious.

> From a cellular perspective, human cells are not really more complex than smaller multi-cellular organisms like amoebas. That's a very limited and poor perspective. Yes, individual human cells are no more complex than others, but that doesn't encompass the entire system that has to emerge. A human being is - obviously, I would think - a far more complex system than a simple amoeba.

You missed the point. What's the barrier to stop simple organisms from developing into more complex and eventually intelligent systems? There's no delineation between "intelligent" and "simple" life. It's a smooth fitness landscape that evolution would (arguably) climb over time.
Post reply on HN