| ▲ | karmakurtisaani 3 days ago |
| I don't see the point of asking this question. Like, sure, all physical systems follow certain rules, so any such process will develop in a way that it look like a computation of an algorithm. Also, evolution itself is constantly optimizing organisms to best adapt to their environment, just like a computation. So asking if life is a computation seems mostly like a semantic musing. Define "life" and define "computation", then see if they're the same. |
|
| ▲ | logtempo 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The title should definitely be "Is it possible to simulate living organism?" given the last sentence is "Simulations like these show how computation can produce lifelike behavior across scales". Nothing about life is discussed here, it's not even defined once. |
|
| ▲ | heavyset_go 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Also, evolution itself is constantly optimizing organisms to best adapt to their environment, just like a computation. There is no optimization, if organisms can reproduce, they'll continue to exist. That does not mean they are the "best adapted" or on a trajectory toward better adaptation. It's entirely possible for a germ line to become less fit over time, even to the point of extinction, and that's still evolution. Time has shown that is the case for most germ lines. |
| |
| ▲ | nomel 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Time has shown that is the case for most germ lines. This is true, but that sure seems unfair. ;) You have multiple competing systems, in the case of a germ. The system that human related germs are competing with is around 30 trillion times the size, with the advantage of some fairly incredible emergent properties that come from that. The germ is evolving, but in a system that completely overwhelms it, with evolved tricks to specifically force the germ along the "unhappy path" of evolution. | |
| ▲ | karmakurtisaani 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Also many numerical algorithms can fail when step size is not suited for their "environment", so I don't see why that should mean much. |
|
|
| ▲ | measurablefunc 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Evolution is not optimizing anything. What's happening in the biosphere is a process of mutation & selection, it's not optimization towards any particular goal or objective. Furthermore & slightly more abstractly, b/c of conservation of mass & energy, what's actually happening is re-organization of existing biomass into different life forms enabled by solar radiation. |
| |
| ▲ | random3 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a rather strong statement, but incorrect in both result and formulation. How is mutation and selection entail it's not optimization? Your motivating the lack of a goal for a process by describing it's composition. It seems like a logical (Non sequitur fallacy) and categorical erorr. For reference > optimization = the selection of a best element, with regard to some criteria, from some set of available alternatives What's the selection selecting from, what's evolution evolving towards? Moreover, you motivate with conservation. Conservation is an optimization criterion. | |
| ▲ | nathan_douglas 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I suppose I fail to see why evolution through natural selection is not optimizing. That was Darwin's big idea, right? That given heredity, selection, and variation you end up with life forms we'd consider optimized for their environments? Or do you mean that optimization by definition must include intent, and evolution as a mindless process has no intentionality? I'm just not sure what you're driving at. | | |
| ▲ | robotresearcher 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Optimization is by definition with respect to some cost function or goal. Evolution has none. Evolution happens, but has no goal. | | |
| ▲ | moi2388 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s the claim. But are we sure about that? I certainly have a goal when selecting my partner and creating my offspring; at the very least that they’re happy and healthy. | | | |
| ▲ | emmelaich 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I would say the goal is survival. Which happens at the cell/dna.. level (mostly) not the organism. (nod to Dawkins) | | |
| ▲ | the_af 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Evolution has no goals, not even survival. Evolution is something that happens. Some species survive for a while, others don't. Think of it like saying water has the goal of flowing down the mountain along the path of least resistance. Of course it doesn't, it's just something that happens. There's no goal. | | |
| |
| ▲ | davidkwast 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The goal is to accelerate Entropy | |
| ▲ | nathan_douglas 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ah! That makes sense. Thank you for explaining! |
|
| |
| ▲ | heavyset_go 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > what's actually happening is re-organization of existing biomass into different life forms enabled by solar radiation. And the flux of geothermal and chemical energy | | | |
| ▲ | karmakurtisaani 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But genetic algorithms are used for optimization all the time. I don't see how evolution is much different from them. A shark is pretty damn optimized bunch of molecules to survive in water, would you not agree? I suppose this boils down to your definition of "optimize". | |
| ▲ | 47282847 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Survival? | | |
|
