VOLVE 5.0
| Newer Posts | Older Posts |
Two fun and cool Evolve projects to try out
May 17th 2006Two things come to mind that I would like to see happen. I don't have the time/skill to write good KFORTH programs, so all my simulations begin with 'seed.kf' which is a really dumb program. But I am fine with this because it is my intention to see darwinian selection evolve a really smart creature, well beyond my humble 'seed.kf' program. But two things would be cool to see. (1) Create a new seed program that has some good LOOK instructions that make the creature a little smarter than what I use. Then run the sim from that point and see what happens. (2) My sim uses asexual reproduction. But in theory creatures could evolve to use sexual replication. So another cool idea is to write a good "seed_sexual.kf" program which starts out with sexual reproduction as the starting point, and see how evolution proceeds from that point.
How does the sim get uploaded?
May 17th 2006On my linux box, I am running a perl script, which runs 'evolve_batch' for 24 hours. When that completes, my perl script compresses the output and FTP's it to my website. It also rebuilds the file "progress.html" (which lists all the simulation snapshots). So I don't have to do anything, except pay my electric bill on time.
The gene that wouldn't go away
May 17th 2006After 700 million births the genetic program that started this simualtion is all but gone. But, not suprisingly the one tidbit of genetic code that is still recognizable is the section that controls how reproduction happens. Here is the original code: [b] energy 4 / R0! -1 0 R0 make-spore pop -1 0 R0 make-spore pop [/b] This computes 1/4 of our energy and makes 2 spores at offset: (-1, 0). I randomly viewed this from one of the creatures in todays sim: [b] energy 5 / R0! -74 -3 R0 make-spore 2- -2 R0 make-spore [/b] It is not suprising that this code has remained intact (at least intact enough for me to recoginize it as part of the original). Any bogus change to this code would make the creature sterile. What has changed is the amount of energy given to offpsring (2/5 instead of 1/2). Also the offset has changed from (-1, 0) to (-1, -1). This isn't a trivial change. Both places where this coordinate is used would have to have changed at the same time. The universe still consists of the fungi crap, and the little moving creatures. The fungi looks much reduced from yesterday. And the sim look healthy for now, and I don't think it will "die out" any time soon. Tommorow should see the first billion creatures born. It takes about 4 days for that to happen. Over the year there should be 91 such occurances (and about 2.4 billion simulation steps).
ALIFE: Good sim, finally!
May 16th 2006The sim i am running right now has not died off! It has been 2 days (and 1/2 billion creatures born) and it seems pretty robust. THere seem to be two types of creatures. A "fungus" or toxic mold colony that just sticks to the barriers and doesn't move. This stuff seems to get stronger and stronger because it is sharing energy and food with all of its neighbors. So a stray organism that gets sucked into this colony has no chance. The creature at the bottom (farthest away from any other moving creatures) lives a long time and has a huge amount of energy. The other creature that lives here are small moving ones that moves around. They have some wacky motion, and seem at least be sustaining themselves against this fungus creature. Just for kicks here is really cool sim that I am also running on a machine. In theory if you enter these values, you'll see the same thing. I like it because it doesn't grow to big: [b]seed:[/b] 1229 [b]width:[/b] 300 [b]height:[/b] 300 [b]energy:[/b] 100,000 [b]program:[/b] seed.kf [b]oval barrier:[/b] enabled
ALIFE: Are 64-bit numbers enough?
May 14th 2006[url=http://www.stauffercom.com/evolve4]Evolve 4.0[/url] uses 64-bit integers for most of the counters and stuff that will grow quite large during a long simulation run. The counters that increase at the highest rate are the ones that count the number of organisms born. My simulations are running at a rate of about 1 billion creatures born every 4 days. This means that if Evolve was using a 32-bit counter, it would overflow in about 16 days. How long can I run my simulation with 64-bit integers before an overflow will occur? Answer: [b]202,156,099[/b] years
If we were in The Matrix, could we ever know?
May 14th 2006I wonder if we are inside of a simulation. This isn't a new idea, of course. It was the premise of "The Matrix" and is also known as the "The Brain in the vat" problem. Anyway, what I wish to ask is not if we are in a vat, or part of an elaborate virtual reality simulation. No. For now, let's just assume that we are. My question is this: Can we ever know? [b]Can we, in principle, come discover the fact that we are ALife creatures in a simulation?[/b] The movie "The Matrix" hinted that imprefections in the matrix (bugs in the simulation program let's say), and especially smart individuals could 'get outside' of the simulation and come to learn the truth. I can't see how this could ever happen. Even with imperfections in the simulation you wouldn't see them as imperfections. To you, inside of the simulation these bugs would seem perfectly natural to you. It certainly wouldn't point to the fact that you are inside of a simulation. And most definately wouldn't give you any clue to the bigger context of your existence. The simpsons had a halloween special where Lisa created life out of a decaying tooth. The difference between that scenario and "The Matrix" is Lisa's creatures (although tiny) were still made of the same "stuff" as lisa. They could observe the same atoms. Lisa's creatures could in principle discover that they are in a dish, and that dish is in a home, and that home is on a giant ball called a planet. And so on... But creatures in a simulation don't observe the same "stuff" as that which the simulation is running on. The lisa-style emergence of life doesn't at all conflict with my metaphysics. But the other kind. The Matrix kind, is more puzzling to me. Maybe quantum weirdness (like the double slit experiment) is just us glimpsing the floating point rounding errors that make up the simulator we inhabit.
| Newer Posts | Older Posts |