On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > John, and others... > > Open, indeed! Thanks for your concise statement of the > problem. > My deep suspicion is that the robots are smoke and mirrors. > That if one needs spatial arrangements to make the model > go ... as we began to suspect that spatial arrangements > might enhance our "MOTH" model of social evolution ... > than one need only write that into the net logo model. > That NOTHING is gained by building the robot except > robot building experience and .... crucially ... public > relations appeal.
Here is where it might matter: If there is lag or play between the software expression of a behavior and the hardware expression of the behavior (that is, in the physical actuators), and that lag is not modeled in the non-physical simulation, then there may be an opportunity for complexity that the non-physical model lacks. For example, an opportunity might be created for the robots to unexpectedly "game" the rules by taking advantage of that actuator lag. (I am not saying that this is the case in the OA, just that it is a factor to consider) ~~James. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
