Tim May wrote:
>
> OK, the example.
>
> Go.
>
> Black and white stones, with rules for moves that can be written on a
> small index card. Similar to a cellular automaton, though not as
> general.
>
> And yet from simple rules on a simple grid, emergent properties:
>
> * "thickness" (a measure of strength or weakness, depending)
>
> * "influence" (ability to influence direction of evolution)
>
> * a host of other emergent behaviors named by the main countries
> playing Go
>
> (Anyone who has played Go has seen the "reality" of thickness,
> influence, gote, sente, and other "properties." They were not obvious
> from first principles in the simple, CA-like rules of Go, but they
> emerge very quickly. Granted, the very concept of "influence" is partly
> shaped by human (or predator) notions of what influence means, but it
> seems clear to me that the ontology of Go (and by extension, other CAs)
> involves higher-order emergent behavior descriptions.)
>
> The moral is that even very simple CA-like systems have behaviors with
> "apparently" higher-level behaviors, aka emergent behaviors.
>
>
> --Tim
>
Fits in nicely with my definition of emergence. Mind you, I would
consider Go to be a complex system, not a simple one.
Cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
