Creationists Need to Understand Emergence

[daniel74f]

With the right settings and an infinite or really large grid "Life" could simulate life. But the probability of life rising in Life is just too slow with a random initialization.

When we turn to our actual universe, then the possibilities of life increase because the "rules" are much more complex (probably not even deterministic), and the energy and matter represent a larger "grid" than any instance of Life ever will.

I mean, comparing a 1000x1000 grid with the Real World physics is not fair.

[halfaheartbongobongo]

conway's game of life isnt the best analogy, because after all, who sets up the board?

[DELPHIIII]

amazing!

[sacredgeometry]

great concept have you found a case for your monome yet? is it running on arduino? i am thinking about building one can you tell me where you bought your leds buttons and how difficult it is to solder those together i havent got much experience but i am patient and want to learn

peace

brian

[pmfcal]

Cool device.

[rezkogitans]

Cute, but of no significance whatever when it comes to issues of creation or origins or even emergence. The problem with Life is that in it there *is* no interesting emergence that happens spontaneously. Nothing of much interest has ever "emerged" of any random Life starting pattern. Only when the initial pattern is designed has that happened. Ironically "Life" is not at all fecund.

[bitbutter]

"Nothing of much interest has ever "emerged"[..]"

That depends on what you find interesting. I think that many of the 'natural' mechanisms in Life are interesting.

Of course, since Life does not simulate mutation, there is an upper limit to how complex we can expect the naturally occurring Life objects to be.

Life demonstrates the fact that complexity can spontaneously arise from simple rules and randomness. Far from being of 'no significance', this is the crux to understanding emergence.

[rezkogitans]

Sure, Life is a lot of fun, and so interesting, but in terms of what "creationists need to understand", there is nothing. Nothing emerges. Start with any random pattern, and you get nothing emerging except a few gliders and traffic lights and the like. Nothing complex emerges. Why doesn't it "simulate mutation"? Why should it have to? That should emerge. Are you going to code absolutely everything into it as "simulation"? Then nothing has emerged, it was all just coded in.

[bitbutter]

"Sure, Life is a lot of fun, and so interesting, but in terms of what "creationists need to understand", there is nothing. Nothing emerges."

As I've explained several times now, complexity emerges. Please pay attention. Sure, that complexity doesn't match the 'complex' you likely have in mind. That doesn't matter. The point is that complexity emerges from simple rules, it's very simple.

[rezkogitans]

What complexity? Even run a large life instance (not your totally dinky one) from random input (use golly, or hansel's applet), and it settles down to nothing but traffic lights and tiny static things like loads and beehives, and maybe a glider or two. Totally non-complex. This is *nothing* that any "creationist" needs to know, or worry, about. I can listen to you call it "complex" all you like, but that doesn't change the totally non-fecund nature of Life.

[AerobicRobot]

Well, if you don't wan't to take CGL into hand, why not take a look at Jon Von Neumann's Cellular Automata. Using only a set of 28 different cells with limited rules, they have been able to make machines that when fed binary tape, can self replicate. They have even been able to make self replicators that have mutations that carry on to the next machine, possibly emulating the stages of evolution.

[rezkogitans]

Von Neumann's work is even less impressive. He built his CA explicitly to enable the creation (from outside--again, no emergence of complexity here) of a configuration that would be able to replicate itself.

Conway's CA is in some ways an advance, because in addition to having a much simpler "physics", it has a physics that was not at all explicitly chosen to enable the creation of a universal constructor.

[StephenRoddy]

@rezkogitans Your dumber than the average creationist and that is saying a lot

[Nate2203]

I think the point is that there are only three simple rules, and out of those three simple rules come things that are fairly complex comparitively. As in moving shapes and whatnot. Now take into account all the natural laws and you could concieve of very complex things emerging, don't ya think?

[pifibbi]

@Nate2203 But we must also take account about where those 3 magic rules came from. The 3 rules running Life were designed by a thinking being (Conway, for example). No matter how simple the rules are, they were "designed". If there was true randomness, no rules would exist, and therefore, nothing can happen!

[Nate2203]

@pifibbi Who said anything was random? I sure didn't, in fact conways game is the OPPOSITE of random. There is no need for a rulemaker, the rules are just an occurance of our physical world. Why must you people make excuses for god?  He's not real, deal with it.

[pudgenet]

Very neat, but this has absolutely nothing to do with creationism. While you think they -- and I am not one of them, but I know many of them -- do not understand emergence, YOU do not understand THEM and what they believe. While some creationists don't understand emergence, many do, and it doesn't matter.

Learn more.

[bitbutter]

hi. I'm certain that _most_ creationists don't understand emergence. And if they did, certain perceived difficulties relating to the idea that life can arise in a godless universe would disappear.

[pudgenet]

bitbutter: creationist laypeople understand it as well as non-creationist laypeople, and creationist philosophers understand it better than you think. You need to work harder at understanding the people you're impugning.

[bitbutter]

"bitbutter: creationist laypeople understand it as well as non-creationist laypeople"

Maybe. What's your point?

"and creationist philosophers understand it better than you think."

You know _nothing_ about my estimation of how well philosophers who subscribe to creationism understand the principle of emergence.

Homework for you: You need to work on resisting the temptation to assume you can correctly read 'between the lines' in cases like this. It will prevent you from erecting straw men.

[pudgenet]

"Maybe. What's your point?"

That laypeople in general don't, and won't, understand emergence, so who cares?

"You know _nothing_ about my estimation of how well philosophers who subscribe to creationism understand the principle of emergence."

I know you think they don't understand it well, because ... you said so. Shrug.

[bitbutter]

"I know you think they don't understand it well, because ... you said so. Shrug."

Was I careless enough to make such a bold claim as "_no_ creationists understand emergence well"? Check the video again if you need to.

[pudgenet]

"Was I careless enough to make such a bold claim as "_no_ creationists understand emergence well"?"

Ummmmmm. Was I careless enough to say you did, either by implication or otherwise? Check my comments again if you need to.

You said "Creationists." This, to me, and I confidently assert to most people, necessarily includes -- not all, but certainly many, if not most -- creationist philosophers, as those are the people most commonly referred to as "Creationists."

[bitbutter]

"You said "Creationists." This, to me, and I confidently assert to most people, necessarily includes -- not all, but certainly many, if not most -- creationist philosophers, as those are the people most commonly referred to as "Creationists.""

'Creationists' does not necessarily include _any_ creationist philosophers.

[pudgenet]

Then you are saying nothing, as NO layperson "needs" to understand evolution at all, and therefore has no "need" to understand emergence.

[bitbutter]

"Then you are saying nothing, as NO layperson "needs" to understand evolution at all, and therefore has no "need" to understand emergence."

I don't feel motivated to try to understand how you're reaching these conclusions.

[pudgenet]

Why would anyone "need" to understand evolution, and therefore emergence? Because YOU think they should? That is terrible logic.

[pudgenet]

Oh, and by the way, you might want to revisit the utter inconsistency inherent in telling me to "resist the temptation to assume" I know what you are thinking, and asserting confidently that "_most_ creationists don't understand emergence."

[seanmPWH]

I think these conversations can be more fruitful, if we can all avoid broad assertions. If life could arise in a godless universe then I believe there would be a sound origins model. By sound I mean one that can not be challenged. e.g. History provides sound-model integrity. Hawking's quantum vacuum fluctuation model (creator-less universe) suffers from it's dependence on preexisting initial conditions.

[rezkogitans]

Well, you *might* be able to develop a cellular automaton (unlike life) in which interesting true life-like and mind-like complexity develop in a manner insensitive to initial conditions. That is, for almost all initial configurations on a sufficiently large plane, this sort of complexity arises. But it doesn't happen in Life, nor in any other cellular automata anyone has ever managed to devise. Bitbutter has no argument here, just wishful thinking so far.

[seanmPWH]

Emergence assumes that the program for life is unavoidable, given the initial conditions. The problem I, a creationist, see with this is not the ongoing process but with setting the initial conditions. Neither Conway nor Von Neumann used random processes to generate their rules. The rules must be controlled, both these mathematicians employed intellect. One has to account for the choice of the properties of the elements in the periodic table, not just observation of their behavior.

[bitbutter]

I'm not presenting Conway's life as a simulation of how biological life got going, but merely to demonstrate that complexity can emerge from many units all 'behaving' in the same simple way.

[seanmPWH]

Understood, but your comments about creationists indicate that you think there's some application of this emerging complexity to real life.

Specifically as it would pertain to genetic drift with no variation-or-quantity limitations. In which case it would be helpful to know exactly which biological realities Conway's Life simulates. Would it be atomic, molecular, enzymatic, genetic, popular??? And how can you identify the one-to-one correlations?

[bitbutter]

The general 'lesson' of conways life is useful to bear in mind when considering theories of abiogenesis. But as i said before I'm not presenting CL as if it were a simulation of how life got going.

[seanmPWH]

I was trying to hone in on the exact biological emergent complexity, that you are simulating. I understand the "life" designation is due to the analogies with fluctuations in societies of living organisms, but this is just a vague likeness.

[Attractivist]

And he literally JUST said that he wasn't using Conway's Life as a direct analogy to physical processes. It's an abstract, which one can use to more easily visualize the system of emergence that permeates the life cycle of every living thing.

[seanmPWH]

bitbutter was the one who introduced the connections to creation, not me.

[plaidfluff]

It's an allegory, a simple demonstration of how simple rules can lead to complex behavior. bitbutter never once said that this is proof for evolution, just that it's something people should think about when considering the origins of life. (Also, the elements in the periodic table are also from emergent properties of the very basic and simple laws of physics, so that argument isn't really working for you either.)

[seanmPWH]

bitbutter is the one who made some connection with creation. My suggestion was, the very basic and simple laws of physics were designed to give the elements their particular properties. That is everything is purpose oriented, weather or not these purposes are achieved through the hidden variables, or know variables, the purpose is evident. In order for emergence to address creation there needs to be a contact point. Is this an unreasonable request?

[plaidfluff]

Douglas Adams gave a very good speech about this back in 1998. Unfortunately, YouTube doesn't allow linking in comments at all (grr) but if you do a Google search on "douglas adams artificial god" you should find it pretty easily. His premise is that when things evolve to fit an environment it's easy to believe that the environment was created for them.

[seanmPWH]

Thanks for the lead. I got to check out the gist of Adams theory. It can serve to lesson the tension between atheists and people of faith, but I still find it a model devoid of any power to explain it's own origin.

[plaidfluff]

The difference between science and religion: science will take evidence and propose a testable hypothesis. Religion simply says "I think this is the case" and refuses to answer challenges to it. There is no way to test the origin of the universe, and barring the creation of another there's no reasonable way to posit what happened; however, everything in science contradicts everything in religion. So, I tend to side with science.

[seanmPWH]

Your characterizations of science and religion are too vague. If the origin events in the bible are exactly what did happen then they could be born out through science. Currently the sciences of quantum physics and consciousness are converging on something that is beginning to look like an intelligent source behind the creation of these phenomena.

If the bible contains foreknowledge revelation

of ultimate reality, I would expect the scientific journey to these ends, to be long and convoluted.

[XGralgrathor]

ff-ing brilliant. I wonder how emergence will tie in with the so-called "law of maximum entropy production."

[rozeboosje]

I enjoyed that!

[gibletparade]

Great stuff. Anyone interested in Conway's Game of Life, and deeper implications thereof, might like to consider reading "The Recursive Universe: Cosmic Complexity and the Limits of Scientific Knowledge" by William Poundstone.

[bitbutter]

Thanks, that sounds interesting.

[maksiiiskam2]

Google "game of life" and click on the first link with "wonders of math" in the title: there is an applet with an unlimited grid (or at least, my RAM is more limited than the grid), preprogrammed interesting patterns, and informations about them.

Have fun!

[bitbutter]

Thats a great implementation, thanks. I'll add the link to the about box.

[AmericanApostate]

That is so cool. I want one.

[bitbutter]

That's exactly what i thought too :)

[silverfoxcondor46]

Good work very intresting concept!

[bitbutter]

Thanks, I think every school should have one.

[Danmill23]

Wow so cool.

[bitbutter]

cheers dan

[tooltime9901]

Is this in any way similar to the program Dawkins explained in the Blind Watchmaker documentary?

[bitbutter]

hi tt. Dawkin's program is quite different to this one, since theres not really any evolution going on here. For something similar to Dawkins 'blind watchmaker' programme you might want to take a look at this other online project of mine: facemaker[dot]redshiftmedia[do­t]com

[tooltime9901]

thanks.

so this is some sort of music program?

[bitbutter]

This particular one isn't. Though i plan to use the monome for music applications in the end. What's nice about the device it is that its a completely 'open' controller so if you can think of a way to use 64 buttons and 64 LEDs you can build an app (eg in max/msp) that realises that. There are quite a few existing music applications that use it, but a few purely visual ones too (like a simple scrolling sign display app, a sprite animation system, and this one).

[RaddNiner]

cool. I havent thought much about the game of life since college, I should get re-acquainted.

[RosieDesire]

Now that is VERY cool. I did a software version of this back in school... back when the XP was the biggest system on the block... GO 8 BIT and 2mhz systems !!!

I added on variant that was really cool, a random mutation. It would change it's reaction to the rules based on the mutation. I could predict the outcome before, but after that the patterns got really weird.

[bitbutter]

That's an interesting modification, were the mutations inheritable?

[RosieDesire]

Initially, no. It gave different patterns but nothing tooo bizzare but once I allowed for inheritance it took changes to a whole new level. Sometimes I would get a full screen, or a peppered static screen. so I had to put some limits back in. In other words, they could mutate within a relative range. Later, I tried to make the project work with paired cells (sex based reproduction) but I got caught up in my next project and I never revisited it. I love your project, I am impressed.

[bitbutter]

Sounds great. I should emphasise that with this demo I'm very much walking a path that others have created: The hardware is cobbled together from online tutorials and guides, and someone else wrote the simulation software too (in Chuck).

[RosieDesire]

Most things are built with aid or influence from other people. It by no means makes your project any less amazing or wonderful. If more of us actually got off our butts and did something like this we would progress sooo much faster. Thanks for sharing it with us.

[acidfingers]

This was great. I think I saw an episode of MakeMagazine's videos where they made this.

There seems to be a spelling error in your title by the way.

Excellent video!

[bitbutter]

Thanks very much, and good catch! I think i saw other Arduino-based Make projects too, that's a really handy little board.

[bitbutter]

I guess he trouble is also that creationists lack any incentive to even try to understand anything that spells trouble for their w/view.

[TheLovePizza]

Fantastic as usual.

[bitbutter]

thanks tlp