Are deterministic cellular automata video games?

Related

This looks a lot like a game I was developing.

No, since Hamburger implies that we have to choose between
deconstructivist libertarianism and postcapitalist semiotic theory. It could be
said that in Death: The High Cost of Living, Gaiman reiterates
pretextual materialism; in Black Orchid he affirms deconstructivist
libertarianism.

The capitalist paradigm of context suggests that narrativity may be used to
exploit the proletariat. Thus, the main theme of Geoffrey’s analysis of pretextual materialism is the role of the
participant as writer.

The subject is contextualised into a deconstructivist libertarianism that
includes culture as a reality. However, if the capitalist paradigm of context
holds, the works of Gaiman are modernistic.

Bailey implies that we have to choose between
pretextual materialism and Batailleist `powerful communication’. In a sense, a
number of desituationisms concerning subdeconstructive socialism exist.

In Death: The Time of Your Life, Gaiman analyses deconstructivist
libertarianism; in Sandman, although, he examines pretextual
materialism. However, Sartre uses the term ‘deconstructivist libertarianism’ to
denote the common ground between society and consciousness.

A very clever step towards artificial intelligence. Simulate the earliest microscopic life from the Precambrian period as a computer game in Quarternary.

Now I just thought of something else:

Can this be defined as life? Or is it just a simulation of life?

Even using random.org? Do you have any sources to support your conjecture?

What, Conway's Life?
It cannot be defined as life by a long shot.
But is definitely a simulations of the quantum states of some sort of a universe. If you get an immensely powerful computer, and build structures consisting of billions of millions of cells you would, most likely, be able to create actual self-reproducing life, existing in a high-level environment that has limited resources and a semblance of continuous matter.

If digital physics is true, the universe is quantized, and we are actually living in a cellular automata (e.g. Konrad Zuse) then there is absolutely no distinction between simulation and reality. The simulated microscopic life would be life. Quantization has not yet been experimentally confirmed, although many physicists are "pretty sure" of it.

If digital physics is false and our world is continuous than any simulation would necessarily be an abstraction, and you could argue that the simulated life is not as real as real life. But it could still be functionally identical, simulated accurately enough to mimic life perfectly. There's still no reason not to consider this as life, but you can actually make a distinction this time.

I should add that in either case, we will never EVER be able to perfectly simulate anything as complex as a single-celled organism, not even with a dyson sphere. We can't even solve the three-body problem or simulate interactions between several dozen molecules with what we have today. Just storing a snapshot of the locations of the atoms in one cell would constitute hundreds of terabytes, to say nothing of the interactions between every one of them which is the real nightmare.

what's this fuss i hear about synthetic life though?

How much of that is junk data though

None of it, and all of it. For the purpose of a short-term macroscopic simulation, almost all of that data can be dumped or simplified.
But the longer the time frame and/or smaller the scale, the more important all of that data becomes.

Replacing an organism's genome with lab-assembled DNA which is copied directly from a different but similar type of organism is impressive but it's a long way off from completely making life from scratch. It's also mostly unrelated to simulation, although I bet simulation would be a useful tool in figuring out how to begin creating synthetic life.

I guess it depends on how important accuracy is to you. If you're trying make a perfect representation of reality none of it can be junk data, right? The minute you start using heuristics and abstracting the individual particles you can no longer be certain that the scenario you've created will play out exactly as it does in the real world. And compounding errors in your simplified model will result in huge errors over the course of a long simulation (like the entire life of a cell for example).

What about making an apple pie?

dude how about you stop ricing your hipster linux distro and learn some real IT knowledge

What?

what you need is an entropy, or how random are seed values themselves

if your seeds are shit whatever you're trying to obfuscate with "random" numbers can be easily revealed

You got me.

How about synthesizing life from chemical elements without using any material from another organism. Is that specific enough?

Wouldn't it be doob?

Of course they can be, but that's an intrinsic imperfection of the idea, not the intention.If they were supposed to be predictable by design, we would simply have "generators" where new random number = entered seed.
Notice, that I said it's not possible to predict those without knowing their exact code. Of course, if I learn the whole math behind the generation of those numbers, I can calculate them with no problem, but by seeing just the results it's purposefully hard to guess where did the value come from, and what's the next value going to be.

ADOM and Holy Invasion of Privacy Badman

…it wasn't supposed to be an actual question, I was just making a reference at a (I thought) famous quote from Carl Sagan.
>"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent The Universe"

Do they have a win condition?

I am familiar with stochastic numbers and stochastic computing, but how would stochastic cellular automata work?

If a cell is surrounded by 3 live cells, it's alive.
If a cell is surrounded by less than three cells, there is a 1-(number of surrounding live cells)/3 chance it will die.
If it's surrounded by more than 3, cells, there is a (number of surrounding live cells)/8 chance it will die.
There, a completely useless non-deterministic automaton.

I don't know what sort of biology-metaphysics-biochemistry circlejerk this is but I'm pretty sure it isn't video games.

Yes, but more based on the traditional definitions of "video" and "game" than what people think of now as a "video game".

You'd have to be able to predict all the sources of entropy on a system, and that's not possible. You'd have to predict the behavior of all hard drives, optical drives, media busses, and all IO devices and TTYs, as well as guess the random seeds based on when the system was started and how long it took to populate the entropy pool.

The 'game' part is in the initial setup, since once the program starts there's no user input.

Underrated dubs.
I'd like to request an answer on behalf of this user.

I-it's a sandbox! Y-you define the win conditions yourself!

Theoretical physics graduate here. Please stop insulting my discipline, fluid mechanics, and engineering.

Burn in hell OP.

MEGASAGE

But that would mean that, given digital physics are true, it would be difficult to discern a win and !win state for the observer.

how about you educate us there on the matter that you're taking clearly way too seriously, AND linking to completely unrelated subjects, since nothing about this has anything to do with fluid mechanics
do you also go into "I like color green" threads to tell people that they insult quantum optics graduates, eye surgeons and solar panel manufacturers?

complex-systems.com/pdf/02-1-4.pdf

The boltzmann equation has everything to do with fluid dynamics. Thanks for further illustrating you have no fucking clue what you're talking about

An astute observation. It was my intention as well.

elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

>a simple mathematical model can be used to do thing
>that means this mathematical model has "everything to do with thing" and cannot be discussed otherwise
>user thinks you can't discuss stacking items in a video game inventory without discussing quantum fusion, because both are based on the concept of putting two things together

I would like to officially inform you that while the idea of a putting things in a grid and making them interact might have originated from crystal/fluid study, cellular automata are a wide subject based on a very simple common idea. Just because you were taught to think as linearly as possible, and always associate general-purpose tools with only one type of work does not mean it's their objectively only purpose.
The only things discussed in this thread were: the general idea of a CA, which can be used for literally whatever you want, and (barely) conway's Life, which I can fucking guarantee you can't be used to calculate fluid mechanics (with out current state of knowledge of the universe, see - any post in the thread about "digital physics") and was never intended to.
Go piss on some children for speaking in english, despite never attending any lectures on proto-human linguistics.

You are correct, I do think linearly, and it has worked for me for years.

Technically, Conway's Game of Life is Turing complete, and can therefore be used to calculate anything a computer can.

Congrats on being the first user to recognize the bullshit.

Okay, you got me here, but you know that I meant simulating it "as is", and not as a quantum computer.

And that's why you're in physics instead of maths.

The message of his apple pie quote is really that it's not possible to make something "from scratch". All the ingredients you use are structures already made by other things. So you unintentionally put something I said in checkmate. What does synthesizing a cell from scratch even mean? Does it still count if you use nonliving pieces from diferent cells as that group has done? I didn't think so before but now I'm not sure.

In a way, internet boards are video games. And my playtimes are shamefully long.

The only winning move is not to post.

What the fuck is this nerd ass shit

OP where can a layman learn more about this?

Every video game is deterministic.

token nigger hanging out in the back

If we really wanna go there, the universe is likely deterministic - impossible to predict, but still deterministic.
We're referring to "possible to relatively easily analyze and predict based only on the data provided through a designated software-user interface"

Check out the theory nerd there. Engineer here, get fucked. The world is made of static theories and laws that you understand but the future is made of combining those theories and laws into something new and unique.

Fags like you, thinking "linearly" would be perfect to explain the Foucault currents. Fags like me that don't think linearly make ovens that use Foucault currents to warm pots.

That's where engineering comes in. Creating something from scratch doesn't make any sense if you're doing it in a vaccum. But the moment you give it a purpose or an intention, you can consider it something entirely new the moment it achieves it's purpose.

So you grab a few chemical elements and arrange them into a cell. That's barely anything at all. But you make it so it produces a specific enzyme and suddendly you have a new cell made from scratch. Not because it was made in this or that way but because it has a specific function that you created and no other cell could do it, at least as well as yours.

Conclusion:
NOT VIDYA

By googling Conway's Game of Life, and trying out any of the thousands of cellular automata programs

Cellular automata as simulation technique is used in plenty of videogames, there's that gamasutra article about the water in dwarf fortress for example

no, but you can make a game out of them