In order to simulate nature, you need to have the mutation and selection
process itself be part of the programs (and not the interpreter).
How about you have a world consisiting of some memory, bombard this
world with cosmic radiation, and add some enzymatic activity in the
form of an
Hi Ketil,
In order to simulate nature, you need to have the mutation and selection
process itself be part of the programs (and not the interpreter).
Hence the interpreter can itself be modified?
How about you have a world consisiting of some memory, bombard this
world with cosmic radiation,
You can do all sorts of fun things with computers. Assuming that you
are interested in modeling really real life, how will you estimate
parameters (e.g. mutation rates) based on real data? How will you
quantify whether this a good or a bad model? I think living in a
fact-free world is a bit
The good fact about evolutionary simulations is that all is theoretically
possible . The bad fact is that in practice is very hard to achieve results.
Biota.org has links to some artificial life projects.Some of them are naive,
but some others may be interesting.
http://www.biota.org/
Michael Lesniak mlesn...@uni-kassel.de writes:
Hence the interpreter can itself be modified?
Well - the interpreter in nature is chemistry. Living organisms are
just chemistry programs.
-k
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Have you read: Fontana Buss : What would be conserved if 'the tape
were played twice'? in PNAS? It's quite fun - they model chemical
reaction as alpha-reduction in the lambda calculus and look at
evolution.
Tom
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org wrote:
Michael Lesniak
