Tim May wrote:
>
> OK, the example.
>
> Go.
>
> Black and white stones, with rules for moves that can be written on a
> small index card. Similar to a cellular automaton, though not as
> general.
>
> And yet from simple rules on a simple grid, emergent properties:
>
> * "thickness" (a measure of strength or weakness, depending)
>
> * "influence" (ability to influence direction of evolution)
>
> * a host of other emergent behaviors named by the main countries
> playing Go
>
> (Anyone who has played Go has seen the "reality" of thickness,
> influence, gote, sente, and other "properties." They were not obvious
> from first principles in the simple, CA-like rules of Go, but they
> emerge very quickly. Granted, the very concept of "influence" is partly
> shaped by human (or predator) notions of what influence means, but it
> seems clear to me that the ontology of Go (and by extension, other CAs)
> involves higher-order emergent behavior descriptions.)
>
> The moral is that even very simple CA-like systems have behaviors with
> "apparently" higher-level behaviors, aka emergent behaviors.
>
>
> --Tim
>
Fits in nicely with my definition of emergence. Mind you, I would
consider Go to be a complex system, not a simple one.
Cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thu Nov 28 2002 - 17:04:26 PST