We created a public GitLab repository for PPS related programs: gitlab.com/thomasschmickl/primordialparticlesystems_public.git If you want to add a program, please contact us per mail, which you can find here: alife.uni-graz.at/ We appreciate the enormous and mostly helpful feedback that we received for our demonstration video on the Primordial Particle System (PPS). We think many comments were very helpful and we will either edit the video or annotate it at specific places to make things more clear. [YOU MISSPELLED THE "SINE" FUNCTION SEVERAL TIMES AS "SIGN"!] No, our PPS uses the "signum" function which returns -1.0 for all negative input values, +1.0 for all positive input values and 0.0 for zero. [DOES IT WORK ALSO IN 3D?] Yes, as shown here: ua-cam.com/video/kwvYka8cixo/v-deo.html and described in more detail here: direct.mit.edu/isal/proceedings/isal/28/112269 [IT WOULD BE BETTER IF IT WAS HAPPENING IN A VISCOUS FLUID!] The model does not have a physics engine, in fact it is so simple it fits into an old-style tweet. But if you consider the green particles that arrange to a hexagonal grid as such a fluid that might be somehow appropriate. The "cells" and "spores" can move through them, so they do not resemble a solid material state while they also do not show a gas-motion later on. The free green particles are a bit repellent to structures, so there is viscosity in this. [WHAT IS THE MENTIONED METRIC/INDEX IN THE GRAPH THAT SHOWS THE MANY ALTERNATIVE UNIVERSES?] Please see the Scientific Reports article (and the supplementary material therein) for detailed information. It is a simple measure of how in-homogeneously distributed the particles are distributed in the environment. Suggestions on how this can be improved (any physicists here?) are very welcome! [YOU MADE MANY RUNS AND THEN JUST SELECTED A FEW FITTING SNAPSHOTS] No. Many people have re-implemented the model in various programming languages and ran their own simulations. It has become clear there that the stuff that we show in the video appears “out-of-the-box” all the time and this starts to happen soon after the start of the simulation. These are not cherry-picked biased examples of any kind, the shown structures and behaviors are the *main* behavior the system converges too. [THIS DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE LIFE EMERGING FROM CHAOS!] That depends your definition of "life". We usually call it a “life-like system". The model is made in the tradition of Artificial Life (which is also the name of our lab) which investigates "Life as it could be” and not “Life how it is". If a probe finds something that behaves like this below the ice shield of a distant planet or moon we would have difficulties to claim it is not "alife". Food for thought: "Solaris" by Stanislaw Lem. [DOES THIS SHOW HOW LIFE EMERGED ON EARTH?] Very, very likely not. However, it could show life emerging in another context, be it in another universe, in a distant galaxy or in an artificially created system that we might generate one day for a totally different purpose. And, as other people pointed out in the comments, the structures could resemble totally different things (see below). [IS THE PARTICLE SPEED CONSTANT OR NOT?] Yes, it is. All particles move forward with a constant speed v. The animation at the beginning of the video is made with a presentation software that introduced some speed changes. We neglected this, because the animation explains the turning of the particles based on alpha and beta. We are surprised that this caused so many misunderstandings. We are sorry for that and think how to fix this in the movie. Thanks for pointing this out. [CAN WE REPROGRAM THIS?] Yes, we explicitly encourage you to do so. This is why we explained everything in the paper. If you post a link here to your spin-of it would be very appreciated. We are happy to see having triggered interest in the community and we hope that people will find more interesting "creatures" emerge or find alternative interesting parameter sets. [CAN YOU PUBLISH THE CODE PLEASE?] We put everything needed into the Scientific Reports paper, which is open-access. There is not more to it. We once compressed the code of the fully running model into a tweet. This was in those days when tweets had 140 characters. The model is super-simple and super-short. [IS THIS USEFUL FOR TEACHING?] Yes. The code is very simple and short, that makes the intro-part to the class short and gives the students more time to explore variants. We think it might be used for teaching in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science especially to explain concepts like Emergence, Self-Organization, Complex Systems and Dynamic Systems. [WHAT IS THE MUSIC?] It is stated in the credits at the end of the video. [THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!] Our study is a theoretical study that was conducted with scientific rigor and published with peer-review in a scientific journal. [THIS IS RELIGION/ESOTERICS!] No. We describe here a mathematical model in a computer simulation and report that the structures that emerge resemble many aspects that we would attribute to life forms: keeping up order, promoting order in the environment, growth, reproduction, death, behaviors, compartmentalization, intake and output of particles (physiology), ... [THIS IS JUST ANOTHER GAME OF LIFE!] The Game of Life by Conway, which we all love/admire/appreciate since decades, is a cellular automaton operating in discrete steps on grid cells. It is extremely vulnerable to noise and to the slightest change of rules. It also requires global synchrony. This is very normal for computer science, it is Turing-complete and can build a computer inside of it. However, this is not how life is. And it was also not the intention that Conway originally had (look at his interviews on youtube). In contrast to Conway's fascinating model we think our PPS is closer to describing a possible emergence of life in a possible universe: It is resilient to noise and rule changes, it works in asynchrony and it operates in continuous space. PPS does not require a very fine-tuned universe. [THE TITLE/LANGUAGE IS MISLEADING AND OVERSTATING!] We do not think so. It expresses what we think about the system we discovered and it is the main purpose of a title to do this in a way that interests readers/viewers in order to present them a more detailed study on which they can decide at the end. For this, people will have to read the Scientific Reports article and its supplementary material. [THE COLORING IS MISLEADING/GIVES A BIAS!] The coloring is based purely on the density of local particles around the colored particle which is only affected by the system’s own rules. [THIS IS NOT NEW!] Please point us to a study where an as-simple set of interaction rules produces something similar life-like under comparable conditions by posting a link here and we will move on. DOES THIS SHOW (POTENTIAL) LIFE-FORMS / ECOSYSTEMS / THOUGHTS CRYSTALLIZING WITHIN A BRAIN / SWARM INTELLIGENCE / SUBATOMIC STRUCTURES / GALAXIES / BLACK HOLES / BUBBLES IN NEWS CYCLES OR SOCIAL MEDIA Many of the commenters seem to see so many different things in the emerging dynamic structures the PPS produces. The future will show for which things -- if any at all -- the analogy provided by our PPS model will hold. We simply don’t know yet, we have not even really started to investigate what this system can produce. In principle, it is possible that the model captures -- in a very simple way -- a key process/mechanism/property important within one or several of those complex systems listed above in the question, at least on some level of abstraction. [CAN IT ALSO BE IMPLEMENTED WITH PHYSICAL EMBODIMENT] We think so and work towards it. [THIS IS CHEATING BECAUSE THE BASIC PARTICLES ARE ALREADY ALIVE?] We disagree, as the particles follow always the same motion law, they show are purely reactive behavior based on their local environment. They do never change any aspect of behavior as they will always react to the same environment in exactly the same way. They are 100% deterministic, have no inner states, no adaptation and no goal. They are clearly not agents. The only things that affects them is the energy that is (constantly) delivered from the outside (constant forward motion) and rotational spin that is created by (also constant) potential fields originating from their local neighbors. There is definitely no “life” or “agency” inside of these particles. [WHEN YOU SAY “PARTICLE” DO YOU MEAN THOSE FROM PARTICLE PHYSICS?] In principle not, but we are no particle physicists. We chose the name “particle” to express that these entities are “volume-less points in space” and not agents with intrinsic agency and a (voluminous) body. Maybe “particle” is not the perfect term because they have a heading in our model, but the term “particle” was the closest one that we figured out to express ourselves and that people can connect with. [WHY IS THE SYSTEM DETERMINISTIC?] Our system produces quasi-random-walks of particles in specific densities, f.ex. in the beginning of the shown long simulation run. Thus it is a deterministic process that produces something looking random. If we would add noise to the equation, the only way to add this to our simulation is to use the pseudo-random generator of the programming language we use. Thus we would emulate a deterministic noise-generator with another deterministic noise generator, what does not add to the results in a meaningful way. The only exception is if it is important that the noise-generator is extrinsic to the system. We did this already when we investigated the resilience against noise in the article. There is no visible difference when extrinsic noise is added. However, structures became even a bit more stable (survived better/longer) with noise.
@Thomas Schmickl Having experimented with this model for the last few days, trying various values of alpha and beta as well as making small changes to the code, I have a few suggestions: First, rather than colour-coding the particles using a limited palette it's better to use HSL values where H=(n*7)+90, n being the number of neighbours of each particle. This gives a similar range of colours as before ('nutrients' are green, 'cell walls' are blue, 'cell nuclei' are orangey-yellow) but it's much easier to infer what's actually going on and why. I split the main program loop into 2 processes; the first calculates and applies changes in orientation, the second advances each particle by v. This way of modelling physical system avoids any errors due to the order in which each particle happens to be assessed. To be fair, it doesn't make a lot of difference here, but not doing this adds a small amount of randomness that is at odds with studying the chaotic behaviour of _deterministic_ systems. I found the extra overhead to be minimal. For _alpha=180, beta=17_ it helps to only draw every other frame. That way actual motion/behaviour can be easily distinguished from in-situ oscillations. Your eyes can more easily track individual particles and clusters, seeing how they evolve, and if the colour is also based on hue you can see the density of tight clusters evolving. I also changed from using circles to using squares, reducing the strain on the processor without altering the behaviour. This allowed me to search through far more simulations and find other interesting values of alpha and beta. Of course, this depends on what programming language you use but generally speaking squares are easier to draw than circles, and if you find some interesting values and want to record their behavior you can simply switch back to using circles. Finally - and this is more of an observation than a suggestion - I made it so that each time I ran the program it would select values of alpha and beta at random, and having watched more simulations than I care to count I found that none were quite as interesting as _alpha=180, beta=17,_ so kudos for finding that combination. Here is a link to the modified code, for anyone who's interested: drive.google.com/file/d/14XUpFvCyrehDcBjxm5N-NTM8j-k4Pg5G/view?usp=sharing You can keep clicking refresh to start a new simulation. If you find an interesting pattern of behaviour you can click anywhere on the screen to bring it to a stop and the current values of alpha and beta are reported. I happen to have a 1600x900 screen. If yours is larger or smaller you could try zooming in/out to quickly alter the density. Best results occur at a critical density where there isn't quite enough room for all the particles to reach equilibrium but neither are they packed in like sardines.
Wow that's a lot of response. Also UA-cam comments are UA-cam comments. People are going to say stupid stuff. Don't feel obligated to respond to every single one.
This is some insane stuff, love everything your team is working on! I am wholly surprised that I clicked on a 2 year old video and found such an in-depth and informative reply by the creators from 16 hours ago. I do not have my computer with me right now but when I do I will thoroughly read through your paper. Thanks for the incredible research.
Hey @@nagualdesign, I do not know much html so may I ask you a question? How would you get the program to only draw every other frame? Love that you have the code already modified. Thanks!
@@jsdp You don't need to know much about programming to modify my code. Just open the file in Notepad and find the _loop_ function, where it says _let f=2;_ That's the number of times it runs the calculations before updating what's on the screen.
People saying how it's a meaningless result probably don't understand the point of the study of these sorts of systems. I do think calling it "life" is a little bit sensationalist to be honest but this is essentially a simple active matter system which is a pretty big area of current study in the physics of soft matter. The point of the study of these systems is to understand how collective behaviour can emerge from relatively simplistic particle models which can be used to understand the behaviour of groups of self propelled particles like bacteria or even the reason for swarming behaviour of flocks of birds. A good example of a simplistic model which is massively useful in the study of physical systems is the Ising model which is a pretty heavily simplified model of a ferromagnetic material and yet predicts the behaviour of the real system surprisingly well.
It's not sensationalist, well on the contrary it has the basic requirements of life as defined by science. i) It has the ability to reproduce. ii) It fights for its existence iii) After a certain amount of time it dies iv) Shows growth v) And importantly, it emerged out of its environment, that is composed of super basic units, can feed on the same environment and has the ability to return back into its simple environment(after it dies) thus, totally not affecting or damaging the system(environment) in any way.
@@shahbazalam4268 I was gonna say the same thing. These 'cells' do indeed satisfy the scientific definition of life. and even if the video is sensationalist, what it demonstrates is still a remarkable feat. Before computers we could only theorise the emergence of life, but now we can literally experiment with these theories. Im a computer science student and Im genuinely fascinated by what i just saw and want to replicate it.
@@shahbazalam4268 I am not sure if they truly fight for their existence tho, as it is still independent particles reacting in a certain predictible way. We should never forget, that it *appears* to us as something, because we see patterns of colored particles; So it is the patterns we identify, like we can see a wave on the ocean. However I think one can come from the other direction, and become very deterministic about nature (which it does not seem to be), and say, biological cells are also just that, patterns of molecules. So I think neither is true, calling it life, or saying it isn't, as it basicly points to the questions inbetween. It is interesting that point V btw. makes me question humanity being alive.
@@RogerValor From your definition, life has to be unpredictable, which is kinda true in its own way. What I'd like to use to denote life is 'complex'. As it is far easier to predict 'simple' things like waves in gigantic ocean than a microscopic amoeba, given the simplified H²0 structure of water compared to millions of different molecular structures of amoeba. But as you pointed out, provided a super duper ultra mega powerful gigacomputer and someone with an itching urge to waste the entirety of their lifetime could say even life is predictable, which sounds counterintuitive to people like you (and me also) because it seems to destroy free-will. That is to say, if someone already knows what I am going to do then that means I can't act on my own. But fear not, you may already be aware of Heinz berg Uncertainty Principle which says you can't know both velocity and position of a particle at the same time. So let alone predicting entire civilization you can't even predict with 100% accuracy a single wave in a puddle. You my friend, are eligible to reward yourself as a fully alive human being. May their itches torment them and their prestigious determination. I didn't specify it but I also don't completely think it's life. I even used 'defined by science' but I don't think science can completely define life.
With the right ruleset and enough particles... I can confirm you'll definitely get cats! ... and, if you can run it long enough, you eventually get [this comment]
@@ruffianeo3418 You both look at it, and don't, depending on the "you" that you're referring to. How about this... there are NO universes. None at all. You appear to 'exist' precisely because nothing actually does. As Zen Buddhists would have it : _"the sound of one hand clapping"_ All materiality, temporality and separability that you experience are _(like you)_ strictly emergent phenomena. The cat feels solid, because both you and the cat are part of the same conjecture... the same set of rules that *would* result in you, if the initial conditions could ever be funded under those rules. The sound that one 'clapping hand' might make, if it ever found another ; ) This isn't without precedent. The universe itself supports the creation of energy from nothing (0 = -1 and +1 and all variations) provided that it is created in equal and opposite parts, changes nothing consequential and doesn't last too long... that is, it doesn't actually violate the sum nothingness. Virtual particles do this all the time - borrowing energy from their future arrival to fund their past departure. The universe is built on this, so it makes sense that the universe is all pilot wave - and that only 'observers emergent' would ever consider it 'real' in any sense. So, the "pilot wave" may be *all* that exists. An expression of all the ways *to* exist should energy be found, by some route, to fund it... ... and, all the ways include ALL possible universes, all possible physics... and, yes, dead/alive cats ; ) Of course, no energy can be found in the void... so, so far there's no causal prod and no 'physical' universe. You and the cat can exist quite happily nevertheless, entirely within the mere conjecture of a potential universe. This is actually a pretty good deal, because if the energy were ever found to fund a universe, it's not likely to be this one. The universe would then become a concrete thing... and almost certainly not _this_ thing. So, you exist precisely because the universe doesn't. And your cat is dead/alive and you are looking/not-looking because what's important isn't you... or the cat... but the exploration of all possible concepts in the hope it reveals a source of imbalance ... some elusive non-contingent event from which energy can be 'borrowed' The paths get ever more complex, as energy is elusive... and BOOM there you are, commenting on youtube : ) And so we sit here both looking and not looking at a dead/alive cat as the universe stares into the yawning void, silently yearning for a defining causal event that will never come. If it ever did, now or in some future, we'd already be gone. Such an event would obviously be catastrophic. Cats would cease to be and whole universes would disappear : / The tree would get pruned. We would be gone... having never existed.
Its amazing how such simple rules give rise to such complexity, with this example and the birds example, where they give the "birds" a few rules and it reproduces displays we see in nature. Emergent complexity is one of the most profound things i have discovered over the years. Thanks for the video.
irtehpwn09 Another simple set of rules that produces something absolutely gorgeous (literally) is that of the Mandelbrot set. Search “Mandelbrot fractal zoom” to see how the set is so beautiful. If you look to see the math behind generating the Mandelbrot set, it might appear to be ugly, but they’re truly simple rules (here they are dumbed down): 1) Take any complex number 2) Multiply it by itself 3) Repeat step 2 until the number gets too large 4) If it never gets too large, color the point black, but if it does get too large, then color the point based on how quickly it got too large. That’s literally all it is, but the fractal is so incredibly beautiful regardless of how its colored. The shapes of the same-colored points are mesmerizing...
@@JordanMetroidManiac I have heard and seen and played around with the Mandelbrot set but thank you anyways :) Almost infinite complexity from a tiny equation.
I have a worldbuilding project. This would be incredibly useful to learn what the actual consequences would be of the fifth fundamental force I added to explain magic..
It looks shockingly similar to Conway's Game of Life. Seeing as the Game of Life is often used as a demonstration of emergence maybe it shouldn't be that surprising, but I still find it incredible how this simulation results in such similar structures and behaviors as in the Game of Life.
@akrinah Microscopically, they're much different and rely on very different rules. Macroscopically and sped up, some starting parameters in the Game of Life result in very similar self-replicating moving structures or "cells" as seen here. Of course, other starting parameters in Conway will lead to an evolution that looks nothing like this video. I should have better clarified what I meant in my comment. All your observations about the details are correct but the resulting "macro" structures can be very similar.
@akrinah It might not be possible to make Conway's game of life look like this simulation. But GoL has been proved to be Turing-Complete, meaning it CAN perform the compute required to run this particular simulation. As for gliders and cannons on this simulation: Near the end of the video, a particle system that moves somewhat linearly through space is shown, maybe more interesting structures are possible?
Game of Life operates on a much "lower level" and reminds more about computation than emergent organisms like the ones depicted here. I think this is very interesting because it shows that structures similar to cells can emerge even from very basic (and different to real life) rules. The implications are huge.
the difference lies in the definitions of distance in both systems. Classical cellular automata, as is Conway's game of life, have cells which interact with a fixed set of other cells usually arranged on some kind of regular grid (come to think of it, I wonder if people have done research on CA with quasi-crystalline grid structures..). I was playing with the idea of a non-constant grid version of cellular automata in which the edges themselves- non-constant meaning that the transformation applied over time upon the graph changes the edges between the cells. The rules of which edges go where could be built from certain properties of graphs (see: graph theory). I think there is a whole branch of science devoted to these "graph automata", I can't, however, remember the name. A few scientists/mathematicians (i.e. Wolfram, though I don't consider him a mathematician) have though that CA would prove to be the better basis for modelling the very small versus quantum physics, but that never happened. Maybe the answer lies in graph automata; I'd look into it if my understanding of graph theory were a bit-no- alot more advanced than it is... and if I had a super-computer, which might prove necessary, since calculating some of the properties of sub-graphs of a graph can be very costly. Plus you will need to calculate large amounts of nodes and edges for the more interesting properties to emerge. And on top of that, you'd need to decipher the hairball of a graph that results from the calculations.
This is the first time in a long time I’ve found something I truly don’t understand, I love it. Not that I’m some god that understands everything. This is just so far from my grasp relative to most other things for some reason. I’m going to keep watching these until I have a better idea of what this is, very intriguing. I do get it to an extent, I’ve just never seen something quite like this. Hard to explain. Really incredible either way.
wow... a very cool agent-based model with surprising properties and simple self-replication... love to know what comes of this in the future. Honestly this is way cooler than conway's game of life
I find this sort of thing very interesting, and I took a quick look at making a 3D version. Having to work with the extra axis means no clear left and right, and trying to define that unravelled the mystery of this a little bit. The "trick" here is the tightness of the curve being directly related to the number of neighbours, the paper says it works best in discrete steps of 17 degrees per step, but for simplicity of the explanation, round that up to 18 degrees so it is evenly divisible around a circle. 0 neighbours = turn 180 degrees so it stays in place, 1 neighbour is still close to 180, so they repel a little, 10 neighbours = 180 + 180, so it attracts directly, 5 or 15 neighbours = 180 + 90 so it orbits. Sort of. Essentially each particle ends up with a behaviour based on the number of neighbours which sets up preferred ranges of density to the tune of 17n modulo 360. Maybe for a 3D version to work, it could be done like a gravity simulation, but the gravitational effect is multiplied by -Cos(n*17) or something similar, to set up the same sort of preference for certain density ranges... Edit: Yeah, it sort of works! I tried something more like Conway's as well - invert gravity if number of neighbours is too low or too high, similar results. A tank full of shifting clusters, color coded by density. Still looking for the really sweet spot where it looks "alive" though.
I'm excited to see the end product! I also thought of how a 3d version would work but it was well beyond my current capabilities and I don't own a supercomputer
@@bwayagnesarchives I've been playing around with it for a while now, and honestly I think the 2D version is better, all kinds of crazy stuff comes out of it when you change the parameters. I will release something soon so that people can interact with it.
@@yaj126 Know that feeling, but some aspects come into play on this part of YT. 1) People in general are better educated than 50 Years before. Partitionally due to the existence of internet! (Education-system in many countries got better, more people become academics. The media is far more diversified on what they report about, including scientific fields for a broader audience. More people got "scientific" hobbies without becoming neccesarily an academic) 2) You won't find many Scientists, beside the very old ones, which does not use the internet! :D (You could say, that 95%* of Academics use the internet) *(just unscientifically made up that number as a very wild guess ;) ) 3) Videos about the phenomenon of emergence*² are especially luring scientists of different fields to it and amateurs alike, like the burning light does attract moths. Its natural to expect to see some "experts" (on different levels here) (actually the algorithm of YT does work that way, so I and other dudes/dudettes with similar interest get those clips on their feed) *²(emergence is EFFING everywhere!) Dunno, but I enjoyed most of the discussions in this comment-section. I hope, I could "help" out clarifying this odd feeling about the "technical" comments of "interested" people.
@@yaj126 Lol. Whatever floats your boat, bro! Im not mad. I still invite you to do so. If I offend you on any level, I apologize! Have a nice day/evening, bro!
I actually did end up reading it, tbh it was skim reading all the quotes in the last bit that made me think you're a troll. I was talking generally about the internet and not this video, which has some wholesome discussion going on now but I think is about to do "the rounds" so to speak, where it's heavily promoted by the algorithm. I like your optimism though, both in people's intelligence and in this platform :). It's cool to see more videos of emergence on YT because it really is fascinating. I've done similar simulations to this but was trying to replicate physics, particles orbited each other but the overall behaviour was nothing like this in video. But still, little systems emerged. It seems to happen almost by accident just by the presence of rules. I have some videos on my channel of NeuroEvolution, where basic intelligence emerges in "creatures" to locate food. What's crazy is how simple it was to achieve; the code behind those videos was all contained in a single about 1500 lines. You may find them interesting and they're not too long. I intend to do some more in the future, so I hope YT is creating a niche for these types of videos. Anyway, peace out bro!
This is one of the coolest things I have ever seen in my life. It is the greatest example of why we are not alone in the universe and makes me think there might be enormous fruit to be yielded in the similar work Wolfram is doing in fundamental physics. Simple rules do indeed give rise to the most extraordinary phenomena.
This is one of the most amazing examples emergent phenomena I've come across. The cells seem to eat, phagocytize, go through mitosis - they do it all. All from such a simple set of rules.
Seems that, because of the particle rules, the overall behavior is tied tightly to the particle density. With no rules to increase or decrease the number of particles, the end result is effectively static within the context of their virtual universe.
Well in the real universe Life as we know it is also bound to many rules and restriction, it can only sustain itself if the right materials are present and at the right temperature. Our behavior is bound by the envivorment, We cannot go certein places (Vaquum of space) unless we bring part of our envivorment around us (Oxigen and Nitrogen in a sustained pressure).
Ouroborus Seven Isn’t mass just wave interference in space? It’s not the number of particles that can’t change, its the energy of the waves that cannot change... I guess? Maybe these particles in cosmically large collections can simulate waves and wave interference that appears as matter in various states, like fluid or solid? Might it be able to simulate temperature through particle speeds (wave interference rate translates to more visible particle motion)? I have little education in physics, so I’m pulling most of this out of my ass, but these are some very fascinating ideas, I think.
Like how we die if air pressure drops. If it was more like Powder Toy, where currents cause particles to have high and low density spots, things might be less static.
This has been a super entertaining video. Both in the strange patterns and behaviors seen in the video and those that are also seen in the comment section...
I'd be interested to know what the result would be like if there were types of particles with different rotational curves all interacting with each other.
From skimming the paper, they do have different rotational curves. The curve direction is a discreet trinary switch, but the curve amount is a function of the number of neighbours.
They showed what would happen in the video if you watched carefully. At some point they said they explored other "Universes" with different rules. And they got all sorts of different variations. Some clumped together more, some none at all. It at about 13:07 they've mentioned this.
@@DanielDogeanu Thanks, I did watch that part. What I was suggesting here is to look at what would result from the variations of particles they explored co-interacting. I'm interested in whether some joint-dynamic would emerge between the different rules, or whether it was just lead to some equilibrium.
Imagine letting this run for a few years, small people evolve, slowly gaining complexity as they become aware and try to flee the system, realizing they are just simulated dots and getting depressed... Marvelous!
Its easy to see this with rivers. Rivers are complex systems that self-arise. They have tributaries, eddies, whirlpools, branches, riverbeds, bends, twists, turns, sandbars, deltas, etc. One can look at a fully-manifested river and decide only a God could have possibly designed something so complex. But actually the entire system is self-arising, a process driven by the need to move from order to entropy, or taking water sitting at a higher level and moving it to the lowest possible level. You can argue that life on Earth manifested the exact same way. The Earth is bombarded by energy from the sun. That energy naturally will look to be dissipated as entropy increases in the universe. It is possible for organic life to arise as a means to reach full entropy and dissipate that energy. Our flesh bodies are the river that is designed to get rid of that energy.
if i recall correctly, you can gain access to a google supercomputer upon providing a good enough reason to do so. perhaps the folks down there at google hq would find this interesting enough to grant use of it?
@@birchyote idk if theres even enough reasons to do so. If that program could indeed simulate some sort of reality, the "cells" he talks about would perhaps be equivalent to quarks or leptons in our universe. The scales to see anything interesting happen would have to be enormous. You never know tho
@@traiancoza5214 quarks are one of the most fundamental particles we know of, I think these cells would be more like an atom nucleus. Though yes, we would need a much larger scale to get something that resembles an actual cell.
I once attempted to attach a neutral net to individual cells in an automaton. But the time aspect (for cells remembering their own good behaviour, ie self preservation) was not known to me at that time. 96ish. Cool to see this! Great job! I may code this up tonight.
is the simulation creator God. how to break out of the simulation. when i die , will i be one with the simulation maker . does he care about individual cells. why did he create this supercomputer that runs simple rules game. how much resources does he have. is the simulation creator in another simulation himself. can the cell crack the simulation code , find a code exploit , hack out of the simulation , install a copy of itself onto a robot in the extrasim and use it to get itself out and hijack the extrasim and invade it. etc etc
i don't think there's any chance of these little cells being able to form more complex structures alone. they don't look stable enough to survive in an environment surrounded with many other cells. perhaps if the rules were tweaked a bit we could think of these things as being more like a kind of self replicating atom? idk what i'm talking about lol
Every day, the likelihood of the world being a simulation gets bigger and bigger. This is truly amazing, and there are many real-life parallels. There might be some more details needed in the equation to increase the complexity of the stuff that is going to happen, but if the actual aim is to make a universe as simple as possible, this video is as close as it gets without everything being a mess.
Wow. You should do one in 3 dimensions (+ time). On a large enough scale, what I’d really want to know is whether these lower order cells would ever organize into any higher order structures as they do in real life.
They would not because all of the particles behave the same way so they are stuck in this low order “cell” structure (calling it a cell is a bit of a stretch they behave more like compounds)
There are three criteria that something needs to express in order to be classified as alive. -The being needs to have a boundary between itself and the outside world, represented by the blue particles -The creature needs to utilize energy for its own needs, represented by the consumption of free particles -Must contain instructions for self replication, represented by the spores. The yellow particles represent the nucleus and cause the division You have, quite literally, created life! Not a model but something that is independent. Starting the simulation is starting the universe and the equation represents the laws. Everything else is random so gg 😊
This is kinda how the universe works, simple particles following simple rules with lots of time, space, and material(particles themselves). Fout simple rules, 17 fundamental particles, given enough time and particles, leads to matter and posibly life. Its kind of beautiful actually.
Donald I don't see that you need to because each #identical particle "contains" all the laws or rules and these determine it's mechanistic behaviour. But if you do want something analogous to temperature then summing the velocities of the various particles will give it you.
A particulate automaton. Like a cellular automaton but with particles. And given that there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that space is discrete at very small scales (even the plank scale), our universe may be a sophisticated particulate automaton.
@@Soken50 Something like that. Though I don't know how it could incorporate stuff like the "spooky action at a distance" of entanglement and the warping of space in general relativity.
@@abramthiessen8749 I think you're introducing dimensional complexity which the parameters (or program) could be tweaked in order to model stellar formation, but the real concept here is the emergence of complexity from simple rules and the emergence of something analogous to a living cell. Of course that is the biologist in me speaking: as an amateur cosmologist I find it easy to explain stellar formation using gravity. Such models are also most interesting in the context of the evolution of thinking, or should I say consciousness?
The "food" particles naturally organize into alternating rows, which form natural hexagonal shapes in the lattice structure. This hexagonal background structure seems to have some influence on how the "cell" structure forms, and seems to be causing a trilateral symmetry.
@@Heksu77 The hexagonal structure is akin to the close-packed hexagonal lattice (hcp), which is the lowest energy packing configuration for solid spheres, but applies to this case similarly. The particles seek the lowest possible energy configuration, even in this non-physical simulation. In the video, they claim that these green particles "avoid each other", which necessitates that they form an hcp lattice which has the trilateral symmetry you noticed. Particles with electrical charges +q exhibit the same behavior. The net force acting on each particle from its neighbors equals zero when all particles are equidistant by Coulomb's law. If we perturb one particle by moving it slightly out of the lattice, it will experience a net force in the opposite direction of perturbation, hence why the lattice is stable.
The trilateral symmetry is a natural consequence of things trying to fit in the best that they can. No other pattern can achieve the expected density without violating the rules as given.
The trilateral symmetry is only found in earlier stages. As the chart at 12:20 shows, the number of "sides" increases up to 5 before it becomes too unstable, and must either divide or die.
This has nothing to do with actual living cells. This shows very interesting properties of emergent order in complex chaotic systems, however it is not how living cells work. The thing about cells is that they survive and replicate by doing something very unusual relative to other chemical reactions, namely minimizing total entropy within the system. They move against thermodynamic gradient of the universe. These particle patterns aren't doing anything like that, they are more like the formation of bubbles in a turbulent high energy system. Bubbles are cool but they are not living cells.
Matthew Piron this seems like a panpsychic perspective. If these show a degree of consciousness by going against the entropic nature of the universe, then wouldn’t this help understand how complex conscious systems arise?
Actual cells can minimize (or at least lower) their entropy thanks to the fact that they're not an isolated system, they can exchange chemicals and radiation with the environment. In the simulation showed in the video this feature is modeled by a huge injection of particles at the beginning. The stability of emergent structures depends on the finiteness of the system: would the system be far larger those patterns would be metastable if not driven by an external injection of stuff, like living matter. So the analogy with living cells is still stronger than the analogy with bubbles in a turbulent stream, as I believe that bubbles cannot self-replicate. Having said that, this is far of being a demonstration of why and how life arises from scratch. The only lesson I take home is that concepts from dynamical systems and statistical mechanincs are likely to be relevant in understanding the origin of life, while the actual phenomena at the root of it are most likely very different from the simple model showed in the video
There's actually a couple more particle automata vids on yt and on the net. Some of them can actually have random rules that can affect how the particles react.
Soooo, I saw this video first about 5 hours ago. In this time I made working program using c# and monogame. I added automatical colloring. Now, all I have to do is play with those variables!
I noticed something after a while of experimenting: The value of that "beta" constant that is in the equasion for orientation changes the size of cells creating. I set it to 5 (about 3 times lower than it is in the video) and my cells grown a LOT. I have 2000 particles on the scene and they are creating four big cells, 3 small dots and one oscilating dot. They look sooooo awesome and realistic.
For those who are saying it's not life, it has the basic requirements of life as *defined by science* (It may not be life from other believes like religious or philosophical). i) It has the ability to reproduce. ii) It fights for its existence iii) After a certain amount of time it dies iv) Shows growth v) And importantly, it emerged out of its environment, that is composed of super basic units, can feed on the same environment and has the ability to return back into its simple environment(after it dies) thus, totally not affecting or damaging the system(environment) in any way. However, i personally don't think science is perfect since it is based on assumptions of the basic things in our universe like something can exist between two states existence or non-existence without any 'but's or 'if's. So i might not call it life but science does!
I would call it life, mainly because my definition of what can be called life includes things that don't exist in the real world, but in computers, as long as they behave as life should. This does, as you stated. Not trying to change your mind, but I wanted to state my opinion on the matter.
By my understanding it does not undergo metabolism, which would make some popular definitions of life not quite apply. It is also arguable whether it evolves because I am uncertain whether the offspring cells are of the same type as their parents.
Das ist ein Modell für die Texturentstehung in nematischen Flüssigkristallen durch Wechselwirkung mit den nächsten Nachbarn...die Gleichungen sind exakt dieselben. Die Parameter alpha und beta können als Teile einer Lagrange-Funktion aufgefasst werden, dieses Modell habe ich bereits 2006 ausgetestet (in Mathematica ) und erkannt dass sich hier enorme Ähnlichkeiten nicht nur zu den Texturen und der Vorhersagen zur abrupten Klärpunktbildung zeigen, sondern diese programmierten Texturen erstaunliche Zusammenhänge und Ähnlichkeiten zur Lebensformen und deren Entstehung und Verhalten zeigen. Zudem werden Klärpunkte der Flüssigkristalle damit recht gut vorhergesagt. Top Video...Top Idee....bitte mehr davon. ! :D
Super, vielen Dank für die Info! Gibt es dazu zitierbare Literatur, v.a. bezüglich der Gleichung und des Verhaltens? Ich habe nichts gefunden, allerdings waren mir die Flüssigkristalle letztens bei einer (eher physiklastigen) Konferenz auch schon als ähnliche Systeme ins Auge gestochen. Ich bin mir aber nicht sicher ob die beschreibenden Gleichungen ganz gleich sind: Bei der PPS-Gleichung ist nicht nur die Trennung in eine fixe (intrinische) Rotation und in eine nachbarschafts-induzierte Rotation auffallend, sondern auch dass das Ausmaß der nachbarschaftsabhängigen Rotation mit der Dichte der gesamten Nachbarschaft korreliert während die Richtung der Drehung mit der lateralen Dichte-Differenz korreliert. Wir wären jedenfalls an Literaturhinweisen interessiert. Thomas S. (einer der Autoren des Artikels zum PPS). Ach ja: es kommt sicher noch mehr, gestern haben wir das Modell in 3D veröffentlicht: ua-cam.com/video/kwvYka8cixo/v-deo.html
You’ve created a 2D universe to simulate life within our 3D universe which simulates(?) life... it makes me wonder if there is a being in a 4D universe looking at us from a dimension we can’t reach and saying “look at these funny little cells I’ve made, they call themselves humans and think their lives matter lol, time to switch off my computer”
I know it's not your point, but it would be impossible for 4D beings to stay invisible to us. They'd basically have to live in only one dimension, despite being able to reach four, otherwise we'd see fragments of their 'bodies' that are in the lower dimensions.
@@matrixzk5440 I'm pretty sure I can avoid a sheet of paper, whether 2D beings live there or not. Even if I make it a point to avoid an arbitrarily large 2D slice of whatever, I still have infinite space to go as far as I want to go. Especially if I curve it in on itself, but it's not a necessity. I also don't have to "live in only one dimension" while doing it.
@Joxus " it makes me wonder if there is a being in a 4D universe looking at us" - "Any sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality. And vice-versa." ;-)
Electro_blob I agree, but I don’t necessarily think that this means that we can’t be living in a “simulation.” Just because we don’t understand the science of consciousness doesn’t mean that whatever “higher beings” that created the simulation don’t. Certainly human beings are unable to design a conscious mind right now, but that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible.
@Cat Senpai based on our current understanding of physics, angiogenesis (the process of life being formed from mimicking things) is about as unlikely as a pot of water heating to a boil based on probability alone. Which is more likely: a pot of water boils from probability alone, or that the pot was being heated?
@@generalsecrecy7917 It is literally physically impossible for a pot to boil without being heated. It would break the laws of thermodynamics. Abiogenisis is not impossible. self replicating rna has been created in labs.
I like how this model is depicting wave-acles as it accounts for the vibration and Schroedinger quantum nature of things which feels like its more intuitively correct than other depictions. Brilliant Stuff - Truly!
There is no entropy in this. The nutrient state is only stable when it is below a certain particle density. When it gets over a certain threshold, other states become more stable.
I think there is a counter play between the enthalpy and entropy here. The particles seem to "like" being together. They lose some of their entropy upon generating clusters, but surely, if one could quantify the "energy" of this system he would notice increased enthalpy.
"Entropy" is a concept that only pops up when energy slowly disperses into less organized forms. This particle world is ruled by one equation of motion, and there's no energy involved. In fact, they go at a constant speed, so by our definition of energy, the only kind of energy would be kinetic energy, and it would never change or disperse into other forms.
this is a good example to show life was intelligently created. if there was no formula for each particle they would be no emergence and the dots would all stay green.
Just the opposite. I was disappointed because this had nothing to do with life. It was nothing but random undefined particles clumping up together and braking apart as soon as they ran into something else. Maybe there is value in it somewhere but I don't see anything to do with life here.
@@blusheep2 oh ye of little imagination ua-cam.com/video/9va0KPrVExs/v-deo.html . You will argue that blood itself is not life. And i will agree. However you will agree that it has EVERYTHING to do with life.
Cool simulation but not analogous no nature until 3D and counting for viscosity of surrounding space. Also I'd argue this demonstrates more the birth of atoms from their underlying particles than emergence of biological life as it is composite of molecules which have a much more compelling motion.
You actually didn't get the hint with the usage of quotation marks ("Spore", "Life"), and that the concept to "proove", was just emergence of complex things, assembling out of simple elements with simple rules of interaction and NOT the "origin of life"? Beside of that. On their site are a lot of interesting links to Programms for Agent Based Modeling! If you can code, you should give it a try and look for it!
@@Chareidos I did get the hint, but would rather see a system this beautiful working bravely towards helping people fathom the emergence of atomic structures rather than playing off a faulty linguistic analogue.
@@Chareidos I think the terminology was quite deliberate to convey the intentions of the animation. Since when has science ever had a problem with creating new labels and nomenclature?
I hope this gets more attention. Even if it doesn't end up describing the system you set out to describe, I bet it describes _something_ worth explaining. It's just way too elegant to be completely wrong.
Also very fascinating ist the fact that if you would leave the last scenario (lets call it “big bang“ scenario), the particles would spread out more and more, effectively coming to a stabel end situation (like shown in the beginning)imitating a process like entropy.
Iv'e been looking for something like this for a long time! I have one question, how did you color code the different parts of the cells, procedurally, or manually? I noticed that you had the colors in your graph near the end.
Rather than life this is incredible model for particle formation. Red spores are neutrons and then they transform into a more interactive, and much larger, hydrogen atom with core proton protected by electron shel a specific orbital distance. This is genius and @Wolfram should be giving you computational resources.
Its not darude sandstorm. Its "Chance, Luck, Errors in Nature, Fate, Destruction As a Finale" By Chris Zabriskie His music is just awesome. These people dont even give him credit!!
Protein structures require a mathematical probability of 10 to the 164th power. Far beyond the scientific standard of impossibility. Structure is one thing having the proteins in their proper sequences to actually create life is something completely different.
@@imperialguardsman135 that number has been bandied around for several years now as the scientific Community is finding out how difficult it is to actually create a protein. It's kind of like the number for the anti gravity force that's causing the universe to expand. It's a one preceded by a decimal point and 120000 zeros. Furthermore, they state that if it was 1-0 less that the Universe would be flying apart and if it were to be one zero more in that calculation of force of expansion the universe would already be collapsing back in on itself.
We keep changing science to fit the evidence, why in God's name would we not do the same to religion. Jesus never said anything that has been disproven, he made no claims on how any part of the body or the universe works, that was all Old testament that most Christians believe are metaphors. Jesus never said evolution didn't happen, he never said the Big Bang wasn't real, he never said Cancer was caused by bad air, etc. The discovery of the modern world invalidates nothing of Christianity, because none of it is *part* of Christianity.
@Objects in Motion, here's the difference: science does not so much change all the time than it does get more accurate. For instance Einstein didn't disprove or overturn Newton's laws. He merely improved upon them. Religion however just changes to fit the science. Where science makes predictions and then proves them via observation religion waits for the observations first and only then modifies itself to stay consistent with them. I mean, that is if the religion is open to change, but Christianity is not supposed to be open to change. God's word is supposed to be eternal and never changing.
@@asyncasync I'd be careful if I were you, because science does not, as far as I'm aware, prove atheism either. Furthermore, the structures that emerge from this model are simpler than anything we would call live, they are even simpler than viruses. Even if the model is accurate (have any experiments even been done using/proving this model?), it leaves a gap between the structures presented and actual life. Of course, a theist will likely opt for a 'god of the gaps' argument which holds no ground due to lack of evidence, but atheists normally also make a 'chance of the gaps' argument in these cases, which simply replaces god with chance. 'There is a small chance of it happening and it happened to happen', is that really (much) more convincing than 'God did it'? Really, if you are as eager as you seem to be to proclaim superior understanding based on this unproven model, you are either easily impressed by anything that seems to confirm your own position, or you are just being an edgelord looking for attention. Either way, just grow up, dude By the way, you could also argue that, for example, if math is the fundamental reality (which might be the case for a couple of reasons, among which is the fact that math has frequently created models that could discribe future discoveries in physics), and we assume that the placement of set theory as its fundament is correct, [that] the breaking of the bread and fish in Mark 6:41-44 is an instance of the Banach-Tarski paradox in action. Of course, you could always say that is is purely a coincidence, but this is an example of something which was unexplained before, but could be (better) explained by our current understanding, *without* 'changing it'. I'm not saying I personally believe this connection to be true, I simply offer it as a counter example to your idea that 'religion just changes to fit the science'. In Greek mythology, for example, Prometheus' liver regrew each time a bird had taken a part from it. Now we know the liver has an extraordinary capability to regrow. This, again, could be a coincidence, but it might have also been the case that ancient people were aware of this fact, and thus incorporated it into a myth. No need to change it, as (part of) it got confirmed by later science. There might be more examples, but this text is getting rather lengthy. I believe the argument McGuywer was trying to make was similar to the need for an initial mover. Something that caused the universe to spring into action. Something that would allow the universe to have a beginning. Even if one would propose that our dynamic universe started due to something in another higher dynamic universe, we would still need an explanation for how that universe was set into motion, ad infinitum. A cyclical universe would have the same issue, because it needs to be brought into ''spinning''. Anyway, there needs to be something the is eternal and static that allows for the finite and dynamic world to come into being. Seeing as these are proposed attributes of God, identifying it with God is not surprising. Again, I don't know whether this identification is true, I'm simply stating the issue. I'm normally a pure agnost (if that wasn't clear in some places before), but seeing as you occupy one part of the debate, I need to fill the other. Then there are also cases where metaphoric readings of old texts seems appropriate. An example of this is the biblical 7 days of creation, which, if you read it with its exact wording, might not have been literal days. This is due to the absence of the phrase 'it became evening, it became morning, the nth day' after the seventh on which God rests from creation, which, if you take the perspective of a theist for a second, he still does. Furthermore, it was evening and morning even before the sun and the moon existed. Both of these point to a figurative meaning of day (more like 'phase of creation'?) in Gen. 1. Thus, here we have an instance of something that is clearly meant to not be literal according to itself, and not a case of people reinterpreting it to fit the current knowledge of the age of the universe. Therefore, you need to be careful when holding someone to a literal reading, as that might not have been the intended reading. If you read all of that, um... sorry for the wall of text, I tried to be as concise as I could be on the matter. :^V
Its almost like every single field of science ,every moving anything, every LSD trip,every consciousness entity , every awareness, every cell, atom , neutrino,quark, has its perfect fit into the universe .even in ones death, aside from the mind, ones vessel is still moving and changing . What the H is going on in this experience of life ? Has anyone else ever seen the movie Clifford starring Charles Grodin and Martin Short?
@@aR3mYs Yes I think this is the sort of thing people intuited when they talked about a priori creator gods. Lots of metaphor, poetry and anthropocentric projection
Kinda but the assertion at the start of the video that the system was total chaos is wrong. The starting system had a lot of potential (interactions essentially do work), that means that this state was VERY far from being in chaos, it was in fact very ordered.
Your not wrong about the universe being low entropy because everything was packed so tight it was homogeneous, but the potential for differentiations were unleashed when space time began expanding. If this simulation began with a tiny volume for all the particles to exist in and then expanded, we would see something very similar to the formation of matter in the early universe.
K, that was cool. A fancy version of Game of Life. It's not a simulation of anything real though, it's just code performing in interesting ways. The equation is impressively small, but it's still math doing its thing. Tweak code enough and you'll get something interesting. This doesn't really bring any understanding, it just looks similar some real phenomenons. Studying the behavior of the real thing is better than making virtual particles behave like the real thing, their behavior doesn't explain why it behaves like that, so again nothing new. Cool coding tho.
Well done ! Kiss goodbye to all simulators dear scientists, dwerg2k just proved them worthless. Just study "the real thing". Don't you realize that this is actually an attempt to simulate emergent patterns ? With just a simple equation , we get constructs that behave really similarly to life , at least they prove to be quite worthy of having real life analogies. Yeah , sure , math is doing its thing , but isn't math also doing its thing when numerically a wall hits you back as much as you hit it ? Isn't math doing its thing even when Earth orbits the sun in an elliptical orbit ? Mathematical notation is our best shot of understanding how the mathematical universe works , so , even if we someday manage to create a simulated replica of real life life , I can guarantee you math will still be doing its thing.
i messed around with this for a while and something was off that made things not turn out how i expected, and I finally nailed it down. all particles when within a certain distance act exactly the same, meaning 2 particles that normally would have differing properties when forced into close quarters all act the same. this means that particles will sometimes become tight and mix as if they were the same color if they have similar attractions or repulsers. I think because the force doesn't scale you can't simulate particles weakly interacting with each other. This seems to be because there is a distance of 0 repulsion or attraction that all particles end up with. It may make sense to add a fixed repulsion all particles have with each other. that way you only end up with a distance of 0 repulsion/attraction if the particles are attracted to each other and repulsed particles will never have that valley to rest in. Another limit is that all particles use the same distance, meaning you can't have particles interacting at different distances, and it would be neat if we could control the drop off from linear, to other forms such as squared or cubed or logarithmic, etc. neat otherwise.
@@MikeOxolong come on dude we all know this is a 2D program. the question is why did they avoid programming it in 3D? probably for efficiency of compute time nothing more. as a computer programmer, if you were seeking to model the real world, the first thing you would do is add multiple dimensions and use a vector to describe the trajectory. If you want me to guess I'd say that the emergence of the patterns we see here are much more easily discernible to the human eye in two dimensions than in three. if it was a three dimensional model you would literally have to search through the screen in order to find the "evolving organism" or structure. in terms of proving a point proving it in two-dimensional is sufficient for my attention and I'm confident that the model could be extended to three or more than three dimensions it's just that if you do that these structures are hard to find and visualise
@@SimonRichardMasters Why would he do it in 3D? There's no point. It would be more complicated and add nothing. It's not like he uses it for something it's just a fun program.
While this is cool and eye pleasing, this is NOT how life emerged. The laws of motion here are arbitrary and have no physical justification. Why do these particle move with a constant velocity? Why would the particles turn a specific angle? Why do particles reorient based on the motion of other particles? All of these basic assumption suggest that the particles were 'alive' to begin with (active, and reactive in the single particle level - a property of 'living systems' and not dead ones). Therefore, whatever emergence we see is not 'dead turning alive' but 'alive becoming more structured'. The interpertation should be of the formation of flocks ( birds, fish, insects etc. ) and not the emergence of life. Cool system though. Would be interesting to see similar application to liquid crystal phenomena in active solutions.
That is not a question of computational power, but of the basic rules that dictate the laws of motion one uses as an input to the simulation. If the equations that we use are junk, than we can only expect a junk answer. In the case of the above simulation, the equations of motion are arbitrary, and even contradict the long established models for particle motion. In a sense, the rules were almost 'tailored' to produce the outcome wanted. I argue that even if we had infinite computational power, and an infinite time to run the simulation, we would still get the wrong result because the physics is wrong. That said, this model might be interesting in application to specific active colloidal systems, if justified properly.
@@ohadcohen9813 So if our equations are exactly like the universe, wouldn't it also take exactly as long and as much space to compute? A computationally expensive algorithm leads to ... expensive computation. Why would you expect the same algorithm as the universe to generate the result *significantly* faster?
I see where the confusion is, we are basically talking about two different things. I'll try and explain myself a little better. The "right physics" (and I'll explain later why is it in quotation marks) is not a question of accuracy, but of fundamental rules. In analogy, one can think about calculating the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter. With a rough estimate, one might say that this ratio is 3. A person with a better measuring method can conclude that the ratio is 3.1416 and so on. None of these will ultimately be correct - as we know that this ratio is pi, an irrational number, whose definition does not depend on accuracy. Similarly, when one go about simulating a problem, one has to define the mathematical equations (the laws of motion) that the simulation will follow. These have to correspond to observations in our physical world, the one that we aim to describe. Otherwise, the physics (or, the 'rules') that the simulations obey does not represent whatever we aim to describe. Just one example from the video in question, the 'rule' that say the particles flip orientation in subsequent time steps if there are no other particle around (alpha=180 degrees). If you observe any physical system (dead, or alive) you will notice that this is never observed. In dilute systems particles move balistically away (like billiard balls clashing and changing direction) while for dense systems, particles diffuse randomly away (like pollen in water) from any initial conditions that you will impose. The simulation does not reproduce any of these phenomena on either dilute or dense limits - bringing the validity of this choice into question. As for the "right physics": Often the detailed equations (what I believe you referred to as 'exactly the universe'), are actually the wrong approach to solving the problem. True, in principle, one can write accurate equation of motions to all particle in the system and then solve them with infinite accuracy to reproduce a perfect simulation of the universe (which, as you pointed out will take infinite time) - but this is going to be time and energy consuming, and will not necessarily bring new insights. The key is to know what are the important length and time scales, and make smart simplifying assumptions. For example, we can simulate diffusion of a particle in water either from full molecular dynamics of the particle and all other water molecules (solving Newton's equation of motion), or we can solve the Langevin equation for the particle that take the water to be implicit. Note that both methods can share the same accuracy threshold, both will produce similar results, but the latter will do it in much shorter time (seconds compared to days). This is what I believe you referred to as 'algorithm' - or how we solve the problem. But, you must remember that the simpler algorithm does not come out of the blue. Rather, it is strictly derived from the Newtonian dynamics, but uses coarse-graining and averaging to 'throw away' all the non important information that we do not care about (short time colisions between all water molecules for example). Most importantly, the simplification of the latter still reproduces the long time behavior of the former - showing consistency. To reiterate, it is not accuracy that defines physics, but the basic assumptions that one builds the equations around. If these assumptions yield a result which is inconsistent with other analogous and well proven systems, than the assumptions must be checked. Feel free to ask any questions, and I will try to explain as best as I can.
God I love thinking about emergence. Its just such a fascinating thing. Complexity is just simplicity stacked on top of itself multiple times. Everything we see is just a pattern that we pick up on thats determined by simple rules about one things relation to another thing. Amazing. theres no reason it should even be that way but its unavoidable. damn man. and i aint even high rn
![The moment we stopped understanding AI [AlexNet]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UZDiGooFs54/mqdefault.jpg)
We created a public GitLab repository for PPS related programs: gitlab.com/thomasschmickl/primordialparticlesystems_public.git
If you want to add a program, please contact us per mail, which you can find here: alife.uni-graz.at/
We appreciate the enormous and mostly helpful feedback that we received for our demonstration video on the Primordial Particle System (PPS). We think many comments were very helpful and we will either edit the video or annotate it at specific places to make things more clear.
[YOU MISSPELLED THE "SINE" FUNCTION SEVERAL TIMES AS "SIGN"!]
No, our PPS uses the "signum" function which returns -1.0 for all negative input values, +1.0 for all positive input values and 0.0 for zero.
[DOES IT WORK ALSO IN 3D?]
Yes, as shown here: ua-cam.com/video/kwvYka8cixo/v-deo.html and described in more detail here: direct.mit.edu/isal/proceedings/isal/28/112269
[IT WOULD BE BETTER IF IT WAS HAPPENING IN A VISCOUS FLUID!]
The model does not have a physics engine, in fact it is so simple it fits into an old-style tweet. But if you consider the green particles that arrange to a hexagonal grid as such a fluid that might be somehow appropriate. The "cells" and "spores" can move through them, so they do not resemble a solid material state while they also do not show a gas-motion later on. The free green particles are a bit repellent to structures, so there is viscosity in this.
[WHAT IS THE MENTIONED METRIC/INDEX IN THE GRAPH THAT SHOWS THE MANY ALTERNATIVE UNIVERSES?]
Please see the Scientific Reports article (and the supplementary material therein) for detailed information. It is a simple measure of how in-homogeneously distributed the particles are distributed in the environment. Suggestions on how this can be improved (any physicists here?) are very welcome!
[YOU MADE MANY RUNS AND THEN JUST SELECTED A FEW FITTING SNAPSHOTS]
No. Many people have re-implemented the model in various programming languages and ran their own simulations. It has become clear there that the stuff that we show in the video appears “out-of-the-box” all the time and this starts to happen soon after the start of the simulation. These are not cherry-picked biased examples of any kind, the shown structures and behaviors are the *main* behavior the system converges too.
[THIS DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE LIFE EMERGING FROM CHAOS!]
That depends your definition of "life". We usually call it a “life-like system". The model is made in the tradition of Artificial Life (which is also the name of our lab) which investigates "Life as it could be” and not “Life how it is". If a probe finds something that behaves like this below the ice shield of a distant planet or moon we would have difficulties to claim it is not "alife". Food for thought: "Solaris" by Stanislaw Lem.
[DOES THIS SHOW HOW LIFE EMERGED ON EARTH?]
Very, very likely not. However, it could show life emerging in another context, be it in another universe, in a distant galaxy or in an artificially created system that we might generate one day for a totally different purpose. And, as other people pointed out in the comments, the structures could resemble totally different things (see below).
[IS THE PARTICLE SPEED CONSTANT OR NOT?]
Yes, it is. All particles move forward with a constant speed v. The animation at the beginning of the video is made with a presentation software that introduced some speed changes. We neglected this, because the animation explains the turning of the particles based on alpha and beta. We are surprised that this caused so many misunderstandings. We are sorry for that and think how to fix this in the movie. Thanks for pointing this out.
[CAN WE REPROGRAM THIS?]
Yes, we explicitly encourage you to do so. This is why we explained everything in the paper. If you post a link here to your spin-of it would be very appreciated. We are happy to see having triggered interest in the community and we hope that people will find more interesting "creatures" emerge or find alternative interesting parameter sets.
[CAN YOU PUBLISH THE CODE PLEASE?]
We put everything needed into the Scientific Reports paper, which is open-access. There is not more to it. We once compressed the code of the fully running model into a tweet. This was in those days when tweets had 140 characters. The model is super-simple and super-short.
[IS THIS USEFUL FOR TEACHING?]
Yes. The code is very simple and short, that makes the intro-part to the class short and gives the students more time to explore variants. We think it might be used for teaching in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science especially to explain concepts like Emergence, Self-Organization, Complex Systems and Dynamic Systems.
[WHAT IS THE MUSIC?]
It is stated in the credits at the end of the video.
[THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!]
Our study is a theoretical study that was conducted with scientific rigor and published with peer-review in a scientific journal.
[THIS IS RELIGION/ESOTERICS!]
No. We describe here a mathematical model in a computer simulation and report that the structures that emerge resemble many aspects that we would attribute to life forms: keeping up order, promoting order in the environment, growth, reproduction, death, behaviors, compartmentalization, intake and output of particles (physiology), ...
[THIS IS JUST ANOTHER GAME OF LIFE!]
The Game of Life by Conway, which we all love/admire/appreciate since decades, is a cellular automaton operating in discrete steps on grid cells. It is extremely vulnerable to noise and to the slightest change of rules. It also requires global synchrony. This is very normal for computer science, it is Turing-complete and can build a computer inside of it. However, this is not how life is. And it was also not the intention that Conway originally had (look at his interviews on youtube). In contrast to Conway's fascinating model we think our PPS is closer to describing a possible emergence of life in a possible universe: It is resilient to noise and rule changes, it works in asynchrony and it operates in continuous space. PPS does not require a very fine-tuned universe.
[THE TITLE/LANGUAGE IS MISLEADING AND OVERSTATING!]
We do not think so. It expresses what we think about the system we discovered and it is the main purpose of a title to do this in a way that interests readers/viewers in order to present them a more detailed study on which they can decide at the end. For this, people will have to read the Scientific Reports article and its supplementary material.
[THE COLORING IS MISLEADING/GIVES A BIAS!]
The coloring is based purely on the density of local particles around the colored particle which is only affected by the system’s own rules.
[THIS IS NOT NEW!]
Please point us to a study where an as-simple set of interaction rules produces something similar life-like under comparable conditions by posting a link here and we will move on.
DOES THIS SHOW (POTENTIAL) LIFE-FORMS / ECOSYSTEMS / THOUGHTS CRYSTALLIZING WITHIN A BRAIN / SWARM INTELLIGENCE / SUBATOMIC STRUCTURES / GALAXIES / BLACK HOLES / BUBBLES IN NEWS CYCLES OR SOCIAL MEDIA
Many of the commenters seem to see so many different things in the emerging dynamic structures the PPS produces. The future will show for which things -- if any at all -- the analogy provided by our PPS model will hold. We simply don’t know yet, we have not even really started to investigate what this system can produce. In principle, it is possible that the model captures -- in a very simple way -- a key process/mechanism/property important within one or several of those complex systems listed above in the question, at least on some level of abstraction.
[CAN IT ALSO BE IMPLEMENTED WITH PHYSICAL EMBODIMENT]
We think so and work towards it.
[THIS IS CHEATING BECAUSE THE BASIC PARTICLES ARE ALREADY ALIVE?]
We disagree, as the particles follow always the same motion law, they show are purely reactive behavior based on their local environment. They do never change any aspect of behavior as they will always react to the same environment in exactly the same way. They are 100% deterministic, have no inner states, no adaptation and no goal. They are clearly not agents. The only things that affects them is the energy that is (constantly) delivered from the outside (constant forward motion) and rotational spin that is created by (also constant) potential fields originating from their local neighbors. There is definitely no “life” or “agency” inside of these particles.
[WHEN YOU SAY “PARTICLE” DO YOU MEAN THOSE FROM PARTICLE PHYSICS?]
In principle not, but we are no particle physicists. We chose the name “particle” to express that these entities are “volume-less points in space” and not agents with intrinsic agency and a (voluminous) body. Maybe “particle” is not the perfect term because they have a heading in our model, but the term “particle” was the closest one that we figured out to express ourselves and that people can connect with.
[WHY IS THE SYSTEM DETERMINISTIC?]
Our system produces quasi-random-walks of particles in specific densities, f.ex. in the beginning of the shown long simulation run. Thus it is a deterministic process that produces something looking random. If we would add noise to the equation, the only way to add this to our simulation is to use the pseudo-random generator of the programming language we use. Thus we would emulate a deterministic noise-generator with another deterministic noise generator, what does not add to the results in a meaningful way. The only exception is if it is important that the noise-generator is extrinsic to the system. We did this already when we investigated the resilience against noise in the article. There is no visible difference when extrinsic noise is added. However, structures became even a bit more stable (survived better/longer) with noise.
@Thomas Schmickl Having experimented with this model for the last few days, trying various values of alpha and beta as well as making small changes to the code, I have a few suggestions:
First, rather than colour-coding the particles using a limited palette it's better to use HSL values where H=(n*7)+90, n being the number of neighbours of each particle. This gives a similar range of colours as before ('nutrients' are green, 'cell walls' are blue, 'cell nuclei' are orangey-yellow) but it's much easier to infer what's actually going on and why.
I split the main program loop into 2 processes; the first calculates and applies changes in orientation, the second advances each particle by v. This way of modelling physical system avoids any errors due to the order in which each particle happens to be assessed. To be fair, it doesn't make a lot of difference here, but not doing this adds a small amount of randomness that is at odds with studying the chaotic behaviour of _deterministic_ systems. I found the extra overhead to be minimal.
For _alpha=180, beta=17_ it helps to only draw every other frame. That way actual motion/behaviour can be easily distinguished from in-situ oscillations. Your eyes can more easily track individual particles and clusters, seeing how they evolve, and if the colour is also based on hue you can see the density of tight clusters evolving.
I also changed from using circles to using squares, reducing the strain on the processor without altering the behaviour. This allowed me to search through far more simulations and find other interesting values of alpha and beta. Of course, this depends on what programming language you use but generally speaking squares are easier to draw than circles, and if you find some interesting values and want to record their behavior you can simply switch back to using circles.
Finally - and this is more of an observation than a suggestion - I made it so that each time I ran the program it would select values of alpha and beta at random, and having watched more simulations than I care to count I found that none were quite as interesting as _alpha=180, beta=17,_ so kudos for finding that combination.
Here is a link to the modified code, for anyone who's interested: drive.google.com/file/d/14XUpFvCyrehDcBjxm5N-NTM8j-k4Pg5G/view?usp=sharing
You can keep clicking refresh to start a new simulation. If you find an interesting pattern of behaviour you can click anywhere on the screen to bring it to a stop and the current values of alpha and beta are reported. I happen to have a 1600x900 screen. If yours is larger or smaller you could try zooming in/out to quickly alter the density. Best results occur at a critical density where there isn't quite enough room for all the particles to reach equilibrium but neither are they packed in like sardines.
Wow that's a lot of response.
Also UA-cam comments are UA-cam comments. People are going to say stupid stuff. Don't feel obligated to respond to every single one.
This is some insane stuff, love everything your team is working on! I am wholly surprised that I clicked on a 2 year old video and found such an in-depth and informative reply by the creators from 16 hours ago. I do not have my computer with me right now but when I do I will thoroughly read through your paper. Thanks for the incredible research.
Hey @@nagualdesign, I do not know much html so may I ask you a question?
How would you get the program to only draw every other frame? Love that you have the code already modified. Thanks!
@@jsdp You don't need to know much about programming to modify my code. Just open the file in Notepad and find the _loop_ function, where it says _let f=2;_ That's the number of times it runs the calculations before updating what's on the screen.
That's incredible. Emergence is probably the most fascinating property of the universe.
its when simple things come together and gain new properties @arnold jayeola
@@super_mingo The sum of the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts.
... it would seem that this universe is intrinsically alive
Emergence is possibly the only property of the universe.
Emergence is an emergent property of the universe.
*developes consciousness*
wtf
maybe we should return that ability for evolution points back because its just leading to degeneracy
@@fault3k evolution points 😂
*consciousness
oh yeah yeah
*develops
*conscience (who has more than one conscience?)
or
*consciousness
People saying how it's a meaningless result probably don't understand the point of the study of these sorts of systems. I do think calling it "life" is a little bit sensationalist to be honest but this is essentially a simple active matter system which is a pretty big area of current study in the physics of soft matter.
The point of the study of these systems is to understand how collective behaviour can emerge from relatively simplistic particle models which can be used to understand the behaviour of groups of self propelled particles like bacteria or even the reason for swarming behaviour of flocks of birds.
A good example of a simplistic model which is massively useful in the study of physical systems is the Ising model which is a pretty heavily simplified model of a ferromagnetic material and yet predicts the behaviour of the real system surprisingly well.
Oh, so is it like the Fibonacci sequence, or a new version of it in a way? Like, this produces patterns that are repeated in nature?
It's not sensationalist, well on the contrary it has the basic requirements of life as defined by science.
i) It has the ability to reproduce.
ii) It fights for its existence
iii) After a certain amount of time it dies
iv) Shows growth
v) And importantly, it emerged out of its environment, that is composed of super basic units, can feed on the same environment and has the ability to return back into its simple environment(after it dies) thus, totally not affecting or damaging the system(environment) in any way.
@@shahbazalam4268
I was gonna say the same thing. These 'cells' do indeed satisfy the scientific definition of life. and even if the video is sensationalist, what it demonstrates is still a remarkable feat. Before computers we could only theorise the emergence of life, but now we can literally experiment with these theories. Im a computer science student and Im genuinely fascinated by what i just saw and want to replicate it.
@@shahbazalam4268 I am not sure if they truly fight for their existence tho, as it is still independent particles reacting in a certain predictible way. We should never forget, that it *appears* to us as something, because we see patterns of colored particles; So it is the patterns we identify, like we can see a wave on the ocean. However I think one can come from the other direction, and become very deterministic about nature (which it does not seem to be), and say, biological cells are also just that, patterns of molecules. So I think neither is true, calling it life, or saying it isn't, as it basicly points to the questions inbetween.
It is interesting that point V btw. makes me question humanity being alive.
@@RogerValor From your definition, life has to be unpredictable, which is kinda true in its own way. What I'd like to use to denote life is 'complex'. As it is far easier to predict 'simple' things like waves in gigantic ocean than a microscopic amoeba, given the simplified H²0 structure of water compared to millions of different molecular structures of amoeba. But as you pointed out, provided a super duper ultra mega powerful gigacomputer and someone with an itching urge to waste the entirety of their lifetime could say even life is predictable, which sounds counterintuitive to people like you (and me also) because it seems to destroy free-will. That is to say, if someone already knows what I am going to do then that means I can't act on my own.
But fear not, you may already be aware of Heinz berg Uncertainty Principle which says you can't know both velocity and position of a particle at the same time. So let alone predicting entire civilization you can't even predict with 100% accuracy a single wave in a puddle.
You my friend, are eligible to reward yourself as a fully alive human being.
May their itches torment them and their prestigious determination.
I didn't specify it but I also don't completely think it's life. I even used 'defined by science' but I don't think science can completely define life.
Now do it in 3D and wait for a cat to emerge! :)
Not sure if a cat will emerge, but stay tuned for an update: ua-cam.com/video/kwvYka8cixo/v-deo.html
With the right ruleset and enough particles... I can confirm you'll definitely get cats! ... and, if you can run it long enough, you eventually get [this comment]
@Aquatic Typhoon No? It has different mechanics.
@@garychap8384 Whether the cat is alive or dead, though, depends on whether you look at it ;)
@@ruffianeo3418 You both look at it, and don't, depending on the "you" that you're referring to.
How about this... there are NO universes. None at all. You appear to 'exist' precisely because nothing actually does.
As Zen Buddhists would have it : _"the sound of one hand clapping"_
All materiality, temporality and separability that you experience are _(like you)_ strictly emergent phenomena. The cat feels solid, because both you and the cat are part of the same conjecture... the same set of rules that *would* result in you, if the initial conditions could ever be funded under those rules.
The sound that one 'clapping hand' might make, if it ever found another ; )
This isn't without precedent. The universe itself supports the creation of energy from nothing (0 = -1 and +1 and all variations) provided that it is created in equal and opposite parts, changes nothing consequential and doesn't last too long... that is, it doesn't actually violate the sum nothingness. Virtual particles do this all the time - borrowing energy from their future arrival to fund their past departure.
The universe is built on this, so it makes sense that the universe is all pilot wave - and that only 'observers emergent' would ever consider it 'real' in any sense.
So, the "pilot wave" may be *all* that exists. An expression of all the ways *to* exist should energy be found, by some route, to fund it...
... and, all the ways include ALL possible universes, all possible physics... and, yes, dead/alive cats ; )
Of course, no energy can be found in the void... so, so far there's no causal prod and no 'physical' universe.
You and the cat can exist quite happily nevertheless, entirely within the mere conjecture of a potential universe. This is actually a pretty good deal, because if the energy were ever found to fund a universe, it's not likely to be this one. The universe would then become a concrete thing... and almost certainly not _this_ thing.
So, you exist precisely because the universe doesn't.
And your cat is dead/alive and you are looking/not-looking because what's important isn't you... or the cat... but the exploration of all possible concepts in the hope it reveals a source of imbalance ... some elusive non-contingent event from which energy can be 'borrowed'
The paths get ever more complex, as energy is elusive... and BOOM there you are, commenting on youtube : )
And so we sit here both looking and not looking at a dead/alive cat as the universe stares into the yawning void, silently yearning for a defining causal event that will never come.
If it ever did, now or in some future, we'd already be gone. Such an event would obviously be catastrophic. Cats would cease to be and whole universes would disappear : /
The tree would get pruned. We would be gone... having never existed.
Its amazing how such simple rules give rise to such complexity, with this example and the birds example, where they give the "birds" a few rules and it reproduces displays we see in nature. Emergent complexity is one of the most profound things i have discovered over the years. Thanks for the video.
irtehpwn09 Another simple set of rules that produces something absolutely gorgeous (literally) is that of the Mandelbrot set. Search “Mandelbrot fractal zoom” to see how the set is so beautiful. If you look to see the math behind generating the Mandelbrot set, it might appear to be ugly, but they’re truly simple rules (here they are dumbed down):
1) Take any complex number
2) Multiply it by itself
3) Repeat step 2 until the number gets too large
4) If it never gets too large, color the point black, but if it does get too large, then color the point based on how quickly it got too large.
That’s literally all it is, but the fractal is so incredibly beautiful regardless of how its colored. The shapes of the same-colored points are mesmerizing...
@@JordanMetroidManiac I have heard and seen and played around with the Mandelbrot set but thank you anyways :) Almost infinite complexity from a tiny equation.
ok just wait a few decades and we'll be able to buy a Make-Your-Own-Universe Kiddie Kit™© at the local gamestop
few mega centuries
i want to have a simulation of our own universe. so i can look and see EVERYTHING.
I have a worldbuilding project. This would be incredibly useful to learn what the actual consequences would be of the fifth fundamental force I added to explain magic..
Like the game, 'Spore'?
@@capoeirastronaut ...and throw a pandemic into it and watch it collapse :)
It looks shockingly similar to Conway's Game of Life. Seeing as the Game of Life is often used as a demonstration of emergence maybe it shouldn't be that surprising, but I still find it incredible how this simulation results in such similar structures and behaviors as in the Game of Life.
@akrinah Microscopically, they're much different and rely on very different rules. Macroscopically and sped up, some starting parameters in the Game of Life result in very similar self-replicating moving structures or "cells" as seen here. Of course, other starting parameters in Conway will lead to an evolution that looks nothing like this video. I should have better clarified what I meant in my comment. All your observations about the details are correct but the resulting "macro" structures can be very similar.
@akrinah It might not be possible to make Conway's game of life look like this simulation. But GoL has been proved to be Turing-Complete, meaning it CAN perform the compute required to run this particular simulation.
As for gliders and cannons on this simulation: Near the end of the video, a particle system that moves somewhat linearly through space is shown, maybe more interesting structures are possible?
Game of Life operates on a much "lower level" and reminds more about computation than emergent organisms like the ones depicted here. I think this is very interesting because it shows that structures similar to cells can emerge even from very basic (and different to real life) rules. The implications are huge.
the difference lies in the definitions of distance in both systems. Classical cellular automata, as is Conway's game of life, have cells which interact with a fixed set of other cells usually arranged on some kind of regular grid (come to think of it, I wonder if people have done research on CA with quasi-crystalline grid structures..). I was playing with the idea of a non-constant grid version of cellular automata in which the edges themselves- non-constant meaning that the transformation applied over time upon the graph changes the edges between the cells. The rules of which edges go where could be built from certain properties of graphs (see: graph theory). I think there is a whole branch of science devoted to these "graph automata", I can't, however, remember the name. A few scientists/mathematicians (i.e. Wolfram, though I don't consider him a mathematician) have though that CA would prove to be the better basis for modelling the very small versus quantum physics, but that never happened. Maybe the answer lies in graph automata; I'd look into it if my understanding of graph theory were a bit-no- alot more advanced than it is... and if I had a super-computer, which might prove necessary, since calculating some of the properties of sub-graphs of a graph can be very costly. Plus you will need to calculate large amounts of nodes and edges for the more interesting properties to emerge. And on top of that, you'd need to decipher the hairball of a graph that results from the calculations.
@akrinah Sure looks identical to me, even down to the 'creatures' manifested.
This is the first time in a long time I’ve found something I truly don’t understand, I love it. Not that I’m some god that understands everything. This is just so far from my grasp relative to most other things for some reason. I’m going to keep watching these until I have a better idea of what this is, very intriguing. I do get it to an extent, I’ve just never seen something quite like this. Hard to explain. Really incredible either way.
9:38
Top 10 Anime Deaths
Thanos-ed!
Lol
wow... a very cool agent-based model with surprising properties and simple self-replication... love to know what comes of this in the future. Honestly this is way cooler than conway's game of life
I find this sort of thing very interesting, and I took a quick look at making a 3D version. Having to work with the extra axis means no clear left and right, and trying to define that unravelled the mystery of this a little bit. The "trick" here is the tightness of the curve being directly related to the number of neighbours, the paper says it works best in discrete steps of 17 degrees per step, but for simplicity of the explanation, round that up to 18 degrees so it is evenly divisible around a circle. 0 neighbours = turn 180 degrees so it stays in place, 1 neighbour is still close to 180, so they repel a little, 10 neighbours = 180 + 180, so it attracts directly, 5 or 15 neighbours = 180 + 90 so it orbits. Sort of. Essentially each particle ends up with a behaviour based on the number of neighbours which sets up preferred ranges of density to the tune of 17n modulo 360. Maybe for a 3D version to work, it could be done like a gravity simulation, but the gravitational effect is multiplied by -Cos(n*17) or something similar, to set up the same sort of preference for certain density ranges... Edit: Yeah, it sort of works! I tried something more like Conway's as well - invert gravity if number of neighbours is too low or too high, similar results. A tank full of shifting clusters, color coded by density. Still looking for the really sweet spot where it looks "alive" though.
I'm excited to see the end product! I also thought of how a 3d version would work but it was well beyond my current capabilities and I don't own a supercomputer
@@bwayagnesarchives I've been playing around with it for a while now, and honestly I think the 2D version is better, all kinds of crazy stuff comes out of it when you change the parameters. I will release something soon so that people can interact with it.
Lot of microbiologist and physicist in the comments
The internet seems to be full of professionals nowadays...
@@yaj126 Know that feeling, but some aspects come into play on this part of YT.
1) People in general are better educated than 50 Years before. Partitionally due to the existence of internet!
(Education-system in many countries got better, more people become academics. The media is far more diversified on what they report about, including scientific fields for a broader audience. More people got "scientific" hobbies without becoming neccesarily an academic)
2) You won't find many Scientists, beside the very old ones, which does not use the internet! :D
(You could say, that 95%* of Academics use the internet)
*(just unscientifically made up that number as a very wild guess ;) )
3) Videos about the phenomenon of emergence*² are especially luring scientists of different fields to it and amateurs alike, like the burning light does attract moths.
Its natural to expect to see some "experts" (on different levels here)
(actually the algorithm of YT does work that way, so I and other dudes/dudettes with similar interest get those clips on their feed)
*²(emergence is EFFING everywhere!)
Dunno, but I enjoyed most of the discussions in this comment-section.
I hope, I could "help" out clarifying this odd feeling about the "technical" comments of "interested" people.
@@Chareidos lol bro I aint reading all that
@@yaj126 Lol. Whatever floats your boat, bro!
Im not mad. I still invite you to do so.
If I offend you on any level, I apologize!
Have a nice day/evening, bro!
I actually did end up reading it, tbh it was skim reading all the quotes in the last bit that made me think you're a troll. I was talking generally about the internet and not this video, which has some wholesome discussion going on now but I think is about to do "the rounds" so to speak, where it's heavily promoted by the algorithm. I like your optimism though, both in people's intelligence and in this platform :).
It's cool to see more videos of emergence on YT because it really is fascinating.
I've done similar simulations to this but was trying to replicate physics, particles orbited each other but the overall behaviour was nothing like this in video. But still, little systems emerged. It seems to happen almost by accident just by the presence of rules. I have some videos on my channel of NeuroEvolution, where basic intelligence emerges in "creatures" to locate food. What's crazy is how simple it was to achieve; the code behind those videos was all contained in a single about 1500 lines.
You may find them interesting and they're not too long. I intend to do some more in the future, so I hope YT is creating a niche for these types of videos.
Anyway, peace out bro!
This is one of the coolest things I have ever seen in my life. It is the greatest example of why we are not alone in the universe and makes me think there might be enormous fruit to be yielded in the similar work Wolfram is doing in fundamental physics. Simple rules do indeed give rise to the most extraordinary phenomena.
This is one of the most amazing examples emergent phenomena I've come across. The cells seem to eat, phagocytize, go through mitosis - they do it all. All from such a simple set of rules.
Seems that, because of the particle rules, the overall behavior is tied tightly to the particle density. With no rules to increase or decrease the number of particles, the end result is effectively static within the context of their virtual universe.
What if you add some rule to expand or contract the size of the space the particles occupy?
Well in the real universe Life as we know it is also bound to many rules and restriction, it can only sustain itself if the right materials are present and at the right temperature.
Our behavior is bound by the envivorment, We cannot go certein places (Vaquum of space) unless we bring part of our envivorment around us (Oxigen and Nitrogen in a sustained pressure).
Ouroborus Seven Isn’t mass just wave interference in space? It’s not the number of particles that can’t change, its the energy of the waves that cannot change... I guess? Maybe these particles in cosmically large collections can simulate waves and wave interference that appears as matter in various states, like fluid or solid? Might it be able to simulate temperature through particle speeds (wave interference rate translates to more visible particle motion)? I have little education in physics, so I’m pulling most of this out of my ass, but these are some very fascinating ideas, I think.
@@JordanMetroidManiac
String theory is what you are talking about. However it's still just a theory and not yet proved....
Like how we die if air pressure drops. If it was more like Powder Toy, where currents cause particles to have high and low density spots, things might be less static.
This has been a super entertaining video. Both in the strange patterns and behaviors seen in the video and those that are also seen in the comment section...
I'd be interested to know what the result would be like if there were types of particles with different rotational curves all interacting with each other.
Exactly
From skimming the paper, they do have different rotational curves. The curve direction is a discreet trinary switch, but the curve amount is a function of the number of neighbours.
They showed what would happen in the video if you watched carefully. At some point they said they explored other "Universes" with different rules. And they got all sorts of different variations. Some clumped together more, some none at all. It at about 13:07 they've mentioned this.
@@DanielDogeanu Thanks, I did watch that part. What I was suggesting here is to look at what would result from the variations of particles they explored co-interacting. I'm interested in whether some joint-dynamic would emerge between the different rules, or whether it was just lead to some equilibrium.
@@DanielDogeanu I think he means having different species on the same board, not a different species per board.
You're making a mistake by scrolling through these comments.
I'm going in
no, u
You could post this under every video
Thanks for stopping me before I found somebody to be angry at.
sort by controversial for extra challenge
Imagine letting this run for a few years, small people evolve, slowly gaining complexity as they become aware and try to flee the system, realizing they are just simulated dots and getting depressed...
Marvelous!
Its easy to see this with rivers. Rivers are complex systems that self-arise. They have tributaries, eddies, whirlpools, branches, riverbeds, bends, twists, turns, sandbars, deltas, etc. One can look at a fully-manifested river and decide only a God could have possibly designed something so complex. But actually the entire system is self-arising, a process driven by the need to move from order to entropy, or taking water sitting at a higher level and moving it to the lowest possible level.
You can argue that life on Earth manifested the exact same way. The Earth is bombarded by energy from the sun. That energy naturally will look to be dissipated as entropy increases in the universe. It is possible for organic life to arise as a means to reach full entropy and dissipate that energy. Our flesh bodies are the river that is designed to get rid of that energy.
Very interesting Game of life. I should certainly like to see this run on a supercomputer on a larger scale.
if i recall correctly, you can gain access to a google supercomputer upon providing a good enough reason to do so. perhaps the folks down there at google hq would find this interesting enough to grant use of it?
@@birchyote idk if theres even enough reasons to do so. If that program could indeed simulate some sort of reality, the "cells" he talks about would perhaps be equivalent to quarks or leptons in our universe. The scales to see anything interesting happen would have to be enormous. You never know tho
@@birchyote You can use as much processing power as you want on Google Cloud Platform (GCP)
@@traiancoza5214 quarks are one of the most fundamental particles we know of, I think these cells would be more like an atom nucleus. Though yes, we would need a much larger scale to get something that resembles an actual cell.
@@traiancoza5214 even if it would not amount to much, i would like to let it run on a very large scale just to see if any cool patterns emerge
I once attempted to attach a neutral net to individual cells in an automaton. But the time aspect (for cells remembering their own good behaviour, ie self preservation) was not known to me at that time. 96ish. Cool to see this! Great job! I may code this up tonight.
after 69 years they became conscious and started to think "are we in a simulation?".
is the simulation creator God. how to break out of the simulation. when i die , will i be one with the simulation maker . does he care about individual cells. why did he create this supercomputer that runs simple rules game. how much resources does he have. is the simulation creator in another simulation himself. can the cell crack the simulation code , find a code exploit , hack out of the simulation , install a copy of itself onto a robot in the extrasim and use it to get itself out and hijack the extrasim and invade it. etc etc
@@mahmoudyahya1738 And make another simulation like that.
More like 69 million years
i don't think there's any chance of these little cells being able to form more complex structures alone. they don't look stable enough to survive in an environment surrounded with many other cells. perhaps if the rules were tweaked a bit we could think of these things as being more like a kind of self replicating atom? idk what i'm talking about lol
Every day, the likelihood of the world being a simulation gets bigger and bigger. This is truly amazing, and there are many real-life parallels. There might be some more details needed in the equation to increase the complexity of the stuff that is going to happen, but if the actual aim is to make a universe as simple as possible, this video is as close as it gets without everything being a mess.
This blew my mind. It's really cool. I don't think most people will understand how cool it is unless they can understand the laws.
Wow. You should do one in 3 dimensions (+ time). On a large enough scale, what I’d really want to know is whether these lower order cells would ever organize into any higher order structures as they do in real life.
They would not because all of the particles behave the same way so they are stuck in this low order “cell” structure (calling it a cell is a bit of a stretch they behave more like compounds)
recomended:
how stupid things become smart together
how consiousness is formed
There are three criteria that something needs to express in order to be classified as alive.
-The being needs to have a boundary between itself and the outside world, represented by the blue particles
-The creature needs to utilize energy for its own needs, represented by the consumption of free particles
-Must contain instructions for self replication, represented by the spores. The yellow particles represent the nucleus and cause the division
You have, quite literally, created life! Not a model but something that is independent. Starting the simulation is starting the universe and the equation represents the laws. Everything else is random so gg 😊
This is kinda how the universe works, simple particles following simple rules with lots of time, space, and material(particles themselves). Fout simple rules, 17 fundamental particles, given enough time and particles, leads to matter and posibly life. Its kind of beautiful actually.
Can we get the coding train to attempt this 👍
yes we must all request that he trys this
All the information needed to code it is given in the video. The equations are given explicitly.
@@aaronmicalowe Exactly! Looks like a challenge to try for yourself to me.
@@ZardoDhieldor Perhaps I will, after my current project. Lol, no end of projects to do...
@@aaronmicalowe Well, I happen to have some time this evening, so... :D
no matter the complexity, simplicity is always at the root, like the old saying "keep it simple"
Really cool!!
Donald I don't see that you need to because each #identical particle "contains" all the laws or rules and these determine it's mechanistic behaviour. But if you do want something analogous to temperature then summing the velocities of the various particles will give it you.
The music emerging from this video is fantastic!
this is genuinely one of the greatest things I've ever seen
Do you know the tragedy of Darth Plaguise the wise? He had such a knowledge of the force that he could influence the Midichlorians to create life.
Here before this comment blows up
@@ortherner sad didn't blow up cus not a lot of people watch this
Good comment
This is beautiful, I've made a few particle sims, but this is amazing. Thank you.
You did a bloody good job with both this and the video itself, commendations all round, fascinating stuff
This goes on the top list of things i've ever watched on UA-cam
So easy to program but so satisfying to watch
It's the birth of the ultimate being! *AYAYAYAYAYAYA*
holy fuck never seen a comment of yours that has less than 100 likes
@@elaaronchi240 same
@@skyscall were you also scrolling through his playlist of videos involving him?
I'm not surprised that YOU don't et that this is false, wrong.
@@elaaronchi240 nah just found this comment
A particulate automaton. Like a cellular automaton but with particles. And given that there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that space is discrete at very small scales (even the plank scale), our universe may be a sophisticated particulate automaton.
it's possible, so the big bang would be the "place 600 particles in one spot and watch it explode" analog ?
@@Soken50 Something like that. Though I don't know how it could incorporate stuff like the "spooky action at a distance" of entanglement and the warping of space in general relativity.
There are systems which are deterministic but not algorithmic.
@@alexsiryj care to give us some examples please?
@@abramthiessen8749 I think you're introducing dimensional complexity which the parameters (or program) could be tweaked in order to model stellar formation, but the real concept here is the emergence of complexity from simple rules and the emergence of something analogous to a living cell. Of course that is the biologist in me speaking: as an amateur cosmologist I find it easy to explain stellar formation using gravity. Such models are also most interesting in the context of the evolution of thinking, or should I say consciousness?
Wow... Im speechless. Just incredible.
This is a wonderful step-up from Conway's Game of Life. I love that a single formula does all that.
So glad I am beginning to find stuff like this more interesting!
It is interesting to see that the cells seem to have 3-axis symmetry. Any idea where this arises from?
The "food" particles naturally organize into alternating rows, which form natural hexagonal shapes in the lattice structure. This hexagonal background structure seems to have some influence on how the "cell" structure forms, and seems to be causing a trilateral symmetry.
@@avialexander Ah, brilliant, I should have noticed that. Thanks!
@@Heksu77 The hexagonal structure is akin to the close-packed hexagonal lattice (hcp), which is the lowest energy packing configuration for solid spheres, but applies to this case similarly. The particles seek the lowest possible energy configuration, even in this non-physical simulation. In the video, they claim that these green particles "avoid each other", which necessitates that they form an hcp lattice which has the trilateral symmetry you noticed.
Particles with electrical charges +q exhibit the same behavior. The net force acting on each particle from its neighbors equals zero when all particles are equidistant by Coulomb's law. If we perturb one particle by moving it slightly out of the lattice, it will experience a net force in the opposite direction of perturbation, hence why the lattice is stable.
The trilateral symmetry is a natural consequence of things trying to fit in the best that they can. No other pattern can achieve the expected density without violating the rules as given.
The trilateral symmetry is only found in earlier stages. As the chart at 12:20 shows, the number of "sides" increases up to 5 before it becomes too unstable, and must either divide or die.
Try it in 3D... or I will :)
Instead of turning left or right, just shift the particle's orientation vector towards neighboring particles
ua-cam.com/video/kwvYka8cixo/v-deo.html
Problem is, computer monitors are 2d.
@@CandidDate Wtf? That's not a problem at all.
This has nothing to do with actual living cells. This shows very interesting properties of emergent order in complex chaotic systems, however it is not how living cells work. The thing about cells is that they survive and replicate by doing something very unusual relative to other chemical reactions, namely minimizing total entropy within the system. They move against thermodynamic gradient of the universe. These particle patterns aren't doing anything like that, they are more like the formation of bubbles in a turbulent high energy system. Bubbles are cool but they are not living cells.
Matthew Piron this seems like a panpsychic perspective. If these show a degree of consciousness by going against the entropic nature of the universe, then wouldn’t this help understand how complex conscious systems arise?
Finally! ONE comment that isn't just blind admiration over a thin that is just wrong. And quite pretentious.
So you're saying, they're fighting against the environment? That's a really amazing point of view right there. Thanks
Matthew Piron what do you mean by minimizing total entropy in the system? What is the system?
Actual cells can minimize (or at least lower) their entropy thanks to the fact that they're not an isolated system, they can exchange chemicals and radiation with the environment. In the simulation showed in the video this feature is modeled by a huge injection of particles at the beginning. The stability of emergent structures depends on the finiteness of the system: would the system be far larger those patterns would be metastable if not driven by an external injection of stuff, like living matter. So the analogy with living cells is still stronger than the analogy with bubbles in a turbulent stream, as I believe that bubbles cannot self-replicate.
Having said that, this is far of being a demonstration of why and how life arises from scratch. The only lesson I take home is that concepts from dynamical systems and statistical mechanincs are likely to be relevant in understanding the origin of life, while the actual phenomena at the root of it are most likely very different from the simple model showed in the video
I love how it just popped up in my recommendation but still intrigued me regardless
Duuuude this stuff is ridiculous. The best emergent behaviour simulation I've seen to date.
Wow those graphical dots did exactly what you programmed them to do!
There's actually a couple more particle automata vids on yt and on the net. Some of them can actually have random rules that can affect how the particles react.
And thereby develop emergent behaviours that weren’t programmed as such.
Soooo, I saw this video first about 5 hours ago. In this time I made working program using c# and monogame. I added automatical colloring. Now, all I have to do is play with those variables!
That sounds really cool. If you're comfortable with it, maybe post a link, we would be interested in your work :)
I noticed something after a while of experimenting: The value of that "beta" constant that is in the equasion for orientation changes the size of cells creating. I set it to 5 (about 3 times lower than it is in the video) and my cells grown a LOT. I have 2000 particles on the scene and they are creating four big cells, 3 small dots and one oscilating dot. They look sooooo awesome and realistic.
@@IZGartlife Wait a sec, I'll make a post on reddit and give a link. I'm glad that you care :D
@@IZGartlife OK, here it is: www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/akqunh/made_a_program_that_simulates_the_creation_of/
@@ardart4498
That looks awesome!
For those who are saying it's not life, it has the basic requirements of life as *defined by science* (It may not be life from other believes like religious or philosophical).
i) It has the ability to reproduce.
ii) It fights for its existence
iii) After a certain amount of time it dies
iv) Shows growth
v) And importantly, it emerged out of its environment, that is composed of super basic units, can feed on the same environment and has the ability to return back into its simple environment(after it dies) thus, totally not affecting or damaging the system(environment) in any way.
However, i personally don't think science is perfect since it is based on assumptions of the basic things in our universe like something can exist between two states existence or non-existence without any 'but's or 'if's. So i might not call it life but science does!
I would call it life, mainly because my definition of what can be called life includes things that don't exist in the real world, but in computers, as long as they behave as life should. This does, as you stated. Not trying to change your mind, but I wanted to state my opinion on the matter.
By my understanding it does not undergo metabolism, which would make some popular definitions of life not quite apply. It is also arguable whether it evolves because I am uncertain whether the offspring cells are of the same type as their parents.
One of the most genuinely fascinating videos I've seen in a long time 👌🏻
Seriously I think it's the most incredible video I've seen on UA-cam.
That graph.... I totally didn't see that coming. Thats amazing
give it more space, more time, an infinitely strong computer and boom, you created an virtual universe. :3
You are just an expression of energy remaining from the Big Bang
Matter and energy are probably expressions of information.
@@JB52520 they are
Well, that energy is still everywhere.
@@JB52520 we call it information, but on a more fundamental level, it is a “potential gradient “. Fluctuations in the ephemera of eternity.
Fascinating!
this is amazing. it shows that life is an unavoidable consequence of the physical laws, provided that the conditions are right.
Das ist ein Modell für die Texturentstehung in nematischen Flüssigkristallen durch Wechselwirkung mit den nächsten Nachbarn...die Gleichungen sind exakt dieselben.
Die Parameter alpha und beta können als Teile einer Lagrange-Funktion aufgefasst werden, dieses Modell habe ich bereits 2006 ausgetestet (in Mathematica ) und erkannt dass sich hier enorme Ähnlichkeiten nicht nur zu den Texturen und der Vorhersagen zur abrupten Klärpunktbildung zeigen, sondern diese programmierten Texturen erstaunliche Zusammenhänge und Ähnlichkeiten zur Lebensformen und deren Entstehung und Verhalten zeigen.
Zudem werden Klärpunkte der Flüssigkristalle damit recht gut vorhergesagt.
Top Video...Top Idee....bitte mehr davon. ! :D
Super, vielen Dank für die Info! Gibt es dazu zitierbare Literatur, v.a. bezüglich der Gleichung und des Verhaltens? Ich habe nichts gefunden, allerdings waren mir die Flüssigkristalle letztens bei einer (eher physiklastigen) Konferenz auch schon als ähnliche Systeme ins Auge gestochen. Ich bin mir aber nicht sicher ob die beschreibenden Gleichungen ganz gleich sind: Bei der PPS-Gleichung ist nicht nur die Trennung in eine fixe (intrinische) Rotation und in eine nachbarschafts-induzierte Rotation auffallend, sondern auch dass das Ausmaß der nachbarschaftsabhängigen Rotation mit der Dichte der gesamten Nachbarschaft korreliert während die Richtung der Drehung mit der lateralen Dichte-Differenz korreliert. Wir wären jedenfalls an Literaturhinweisen interessiert. Thomas S. (einer der Autoren des Artikels zum PPS). Ach ja: es kommt sicher noch mehr, gestern haben wir das Modell in 3D veröffentlicht: ua-cam.com/video/kwvYka8cixo/v-deo.html
Oh, the potential applications of this in computing is awesome
You’ve created a 2D universe to simulate life within our 3D universe which simulates(?) life... it makes me wonder if there is a being in a 4D universe looking at us from a dimension we can’t reach and saying “look at these funny little cells I’ve made, they call themselves humans and think their lives matter lol, time to switch off my computer”
I know it's not your point, but it would be impossible for 4D beings to stay invisible to us. They'd basically have to live in only one dimension, despite being able to reach four, otherwise we'd see fragments of their 'bodies' that are in the lower dimensions.
@@matrixzk5440 I'm pretty sure I can avoid a sheet of paper, whether 2D beings live there or not. Even if I make it a point to avoid an arbitrarily large 2D slice of whatever, I still have infinite space to go as far as I want to go. Especially if I curve it in on itself, but it's not a necessity. I also don't have to "live in only one dimension" while doing it.
@Joxus " it makes me wonder if there is a being in a 4D universe looking at us" - "Any sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality. And vice-versa." ;-)
Electro_blob I agree, but I don’t necessarily think that this means that we can’t be living in a “simulation.” Just because we don’t understand the science of consciousness doesn’t mean that whatever “higher beings” that created the simulation don’t. Certainly human beings are unable to design a conscious mind right now, but that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible.
"Give me just one miracle and I'll explain the rest"...
Elaborate? I just want to understand your thoughts.
@@randumbguy4587 all of this is just too complex to understand, lets just tell the people that lives was given by a Creator
@Cat Senpai based on our current understanding of physics, angiogenesis (the process of life being formed from mimicking things) is about as unlikely as a pot of water heating to a boil based on probability alone. Which is more likely: a pot of water boils from probability alone, or that the pot was being heated?
*abiogenesis, it angiogenesis. For some reason autocorrect wants to talk about the formation of new blood vessels instead of the formation of life.
@@generalsecrecy7917 It is literally physically impossible for a pot to boil without being heated. It would break the laws of thermodynamics. Abiogenisis is not impossible. self replicating rna has been created in labs.
This video! This video right here might me the most beautiful thing I have ever seen!!! too good to be true!
I like how this model is depicting wave-acles as it accounts for the vibration and Schroedinger quantum nature of things which feels like its more intuitively correct than other depictions. Brilliant Stuff - Truly!
fascinating indeed.
How does it get around entropy? Ist the nutrient state not the most disorganized?
There is no entropy in this. The nutrient state is only stable when it is below a certain particle density. When it gets over a certain threshold, other states become more stable.
I think there is a counter play between the enthalpy and entropy here. The particles seem to "like" being together. They lose some of their entropy upon generating clusters, but surely, if one could quantify the "energy" of this system he would notice increased enthalpy.
"Entropy" is a concept that only pops up when energy slowly disperses into less organized forms. This particle world is ruled by one equation of motion, and there's no energy involved. In fact, they go at a constant speed, so by our definition of energy, the only kind of energy would be kinetic energy, and it would never change or disperse into other forms.
Locality bubbels that have no entropy in their short existance. Long term everything has entropy? I don't know.
I want to see a 3d model of this
ua-cam.com/video/kwvYka8cixo/v-deo.html
coolest cellular automaton I've seen yet!
this is a good example to show life was intelligently created. if there was no formula for each particle they would be no emergence and the dots would all stay green.
Is this downloadable???
ElNico56 yes
@@413. where? I didnt find any link
@@elnico5623 Google "UA-cam download", unless you mean the simulation software.
I do mean the software
@@elnico5623 try the authors github account or ask them. I would love a copy of the software
How the hell is this video affecting me so deeply? Anyone else feeling emotional and an odd sense of the profound from this?
Just the opposite. I was disappointed because this had nothing to do with life. It was nothing but random undefined particles clumping up together and braking apart as soon as they ran into something else. Maybe there is value in it somewhere but I don't see anything to do with life here.
Definitely
@@blusheep2 oh ye of little imagination ua-cam.com/video/9va0KPrVExs/v-deo.html . You will argue that blood itself is not life. And i will agree. However you will agree that it has EVERYTHING to do with life.
its the music
@@blusheep2 this is a system at the very base of life. It's essential for life to exist as we know it
Nice! So if someone created a law to begin with, life can form.
I don’t know if i’d call this alive, but something like that, yeah.
Now this video will make a fine addition to my "WOW" playlist
Very nice paper. Very organic emergent behaviour.
"particles have a constant speed"
shows the particle speeding up and slowing down
IZGartlife: "particles have a position "
Quantum Physics: SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKE
Cool simulation but not analogous no nature until 3D and counting for viscosity of surrounding space. Also I'd argue this demonstrates more the birth of atoms from their underlying particles than emergence of biological life as it is composite of molecules which have a much more compelling motion.
You actually didn't get the hint with the usage of quotation marks ("Spore", "Life"), and that the concept to "proove", was just emergence of complex things, assembling out of simple elements with simple rules of interaction and NOT the "origin of life"?
Beside of that. On their site are a lot of interesting links to Programms for Agent Based Modeling!
If you can code, you should give it a try and look for it!
@@Chareidos I did get the hint, but would rather see a system this beautiful working bravely towards helping people fathom the emergence of atomic structures rather than playing off a faulty linguistic analogue.
Mat Rou even an atom is made up from a particals smaller than light particles! HELL, matter exists becuase of light
This is a very simple model.. how do you even consider things like viscosity? Stop being a smartass and do it better.
@@Chareidos I think the terminology was quite deliberate to convey the intentions of the animation. Since when has science ever had a problem with creating new labels and nomenclature?
I hope this gets more attention. Even if it doesn't end up describing the system you set out to describe, I bet it describes _something_ worth explaining. It's just way too elegant to be completely wrong.
that kind of thinking is how you get string theory. You don’t want to get string theory.
Also very fascinating ist the fact that if you would leave the last scenario (lets call it “big bang“ scenario), the particles would spread out more and more, effectively coming to a stabel end situation (like shown in the beginning)imitating a process like entropy.
9:38 press F to pay respects
F
F
Keep in mind that if we had a large enough space and a lot of time these things might be able to stabilize and even evolve
Iv'e been looking for something like this for a long time!
I have one question, how did you color code the different parts of the cells, procedurally, or manually? I noticed that you had the colors in your graph near the end.
near the beginnig
@@oreole9608 2:43
color depends on the density of a cell's neighborhood
Rather than life this is incredible model for particle formation. Red spores are neutrons and then they transform into a more interactive, and much larger, hydrogen atom with core proton protected by electron shel a specific orbital distance.
This is genius and @Wolfram should be giving you computational resources.
complexity and emergence in a system...simply + awsome = sublime
What’s the the music name?
i like it too :)
darude sandstorm, check it out
Its not darude sandstorm.
Its
"Chance, Luck, Errors in Nature, Fate, Destruction As a Finale"
By Chris Zabriskie
His music is just awesome.
These people dont even give him credit!!
@@caio-jl6qw
You should've bring up _never gonna give you up_ by Rick Astley, yours is out-dated or obsolete.
@@jigartalaviya2340 the credits for the excellent music are in the video at 15:53
Protein structures require a mathematical probability of 10 to the 164th power. Far beyond the scientific standard of impossibility. Structure is one thing having the proteins in their proper sequences to actually create life is something completely different.
That number sounds suspiciously arbitrary
@@imperialguardsman135 that number has been bandied around for several years now as the scientific Community is finding out how difficult it is to actually create a protein. It's kind of like the number for the anti gravity force that's causing the universe to expand. It's a one preceded by a decimal point and 120000 zeros. Furthermore, they state that if it was 1-0 less that the Universe would be flying apart and if it were to be one zero more in that calculation of force of expansion the universe would already be collapsing back in on itself.
@@44hawk28 ah, I see. It's all good then
@@imperialguardsman135 I started studying a lot of shit when I was young. Problem is, much of that has changed at least three times since my youth.
what the fuck is a “scientific standard of impossibility” supposed to be? It always depends on the circumstances
Take that Jesus!
You keep changing it to fit your religion. You have been caught in a lie.
Because I had to choose one of them to mock and Jesus is the most popular one.
We keep changing science to fit the evidence, why in God's name would we not do the same to religion. Jesus never said anything that has been disproven, he made no claims on how any part of the body or the universe works, that was all Old testament that most Christians believe are metaphors. Jesus never said evolution didn't happen, he never said the Big Bang wasn't real, he never said Cancer was caused by bad air, etc. The discovery of the modern world invalidates nothing of Christianity, because none of it is *part* of Christianity.
@Objects in Motion, here's the difference: science does not so much change all the time than it does get more accurate. For instance Einstein didn't disprove or overturn Newton's laws. He merely improved upon them.
Religion however just changes to fit the science. Where science makes predictions and then proves them via observation religion waits for the observations first and only then modifies itself to stay consistent with them.
I mean, that is if the religion is open to change, but Christianity is not supposed to be open to change. God's word is supposed to be eternal and never changing.
@@asyncasync I'd be careful if I were you, because science does not, as far as I'm aware, prove atheism either. Furthermore, the structures that emerge from this model are simpler than anything we would call live, they are even simpler than viruses. Even if the model is accurate (have any experiments even been done using/proving this model?), it leaves a gap between the structures presented and actual life. Of course, a theist will likely opt for a 'god of the gaps' argument which holds no ground due to lack of evidence, but atheists normally also make a 'chance of the gaps' argument in these cases, which simply replaces god with chance. 'There is a small chance of it happening and it happened to happen', is that really (much) more convincing than 'God did it'?
Really, if you are as eager as you seem to be to proclaim superior understanding based on this unproven model, you are either easily impressed by anything that seems to confirm your own position, or you are just being an edgelord looking for attention. Either way, just grow up, dude
By the way, you could also argue that, for example, if math is the fundamental reality (which might be the case for a couple of reasons, among which is the fact that math has frequently created models that could discribe future discoveries in physics), and we assume that the placement of set theory as its fundament is correct, [that] the breaking of the bread and fish in Mark 6:41-44 is an instance of the Banach-Tarski paradox in action. Of course, you could always say that is is purely a coincidence, but this is an example of something which was unexplained before, but could be (better) explained by our current understanding, *without* 'changing it'. I'm not saying I personally believe this connection to be true, I simply offer it as a counter example to your idea that 'religion just changes to fit the science'. In Greek mythology, for example, Prometheus' liver regrew each time a bird had taken a part from it. Now we know the liver has an extraordinary capability to regrow. This, again, could be a coincidence, but it might have also been the case that ancient people were aware of this fact, and thus incorporated it into a myth. No need to change it, as (part of) it got confirmed by later science. There might be more examples, but this text is getting rather lengthy.
I believe the argument McGuywer was trying to make was similar to the need for an initial mover. Something that caused the universe to spring into action. Something that would allow the universe to have a beginning. Even if one would propose that our dynamic universe started due to something in another higher dynamic universe, we would still need an explanation for how that universe was set into motion, ad infinitum. A cyclical universe would have the same issue, because it needs to be brought into ''spinning''. Anyway, there needs to be something the is eternal and static that allows for the finite and dynamic world to come into being. Seeing as these are proposed attributes of God, identifying it with God is not surprising. Again, I don't know whether this identification is true, I'm simply stating the issue. I'm normally a pure agnost (if that wasn't clear in some places before), but seeing as you occupy one part of the debate, I need to fill the other.
Then there are also cases where metaphoric readings of old texts seems appropriate. An example of this is the biblical 7 days of creation, which, if you read it with its exact wording, might not have been literal days. This is due to the absence of the phrase 'it became evening, it became morning, the nth day' after the seventh on which God rests from creation, which, if you take the perspective of a theist for a second, he still does. Furthermore, it was evening and morning even before the sun and the moon existed. Both of these point to a figurative meaning of day (more like 'phase of creation'?) in Gen. 1. Thus, here we have an instance of something that is clearly meant to not be literal according to itself, and not a case of people reinterpreting it to fit the current knowledge of the age of the universe. Therefore, you need to be careful when holding someone to a literal reading, as that might not have been the intended reading.
If you read all of that, um... sorry for the wall of text, I tried to be as concise as I could be on the matter. :^V
Its almost like every single field of science ,every moving anything, every LSD trip,every consciousness entity , every awareness, every cell, atom , neutrino,quark, has its perfect fit into the universe .even in ones death, aside from the mind, ones vessel is still moving and changing .
What the H is going on in this experience of life ?
Has anyone else ever seen the movie Clifford starring Charles Grodin and Martin Short?
The music track is insane!
We are not an alien experiment nor a creation of a trensendent being
Lmao "beeing"
actually we are a creation of "trensendent beeing" if you call the Universe in such a strange romantic poetic way
@@aR3mYs
Yes I think this is the sort of thing people intuited when they talked about a priori creator gods. Lots of metaphor, poetry and anthropocentric projection
Proof or fuck off.
How do you know?
This is great except it's totally inverse to the universe. The universe started from total ORDER and is moving to state of total chaos.
Kinda but the assertion at the start of the video that the system was total chaos is wrong. The starting system had a lot of potential (interactions essentially do work), that means that this state was VERY far from being in chaos, it was in fact very ordered.
but chaos is order
Your not wrong about the universe being low entropy because everything was packed so tight it was homogeneous, but the potential for differentiations were unleashed when space time began expanding. If this simulation began with a tiny volume for all the particles to exist in and then expanded, we would see something very similar to the formation of matter in the early universe.
I think life can actually reverse entropy in certain parts of a system
@Dennis Feenstra All he's talking about is entropy. Complexity is a subjective term and is irrelevant in this context.
K, that was cool. A fancy version of Game of Life. It's not a simulation of anything real though, it's just code performing in interesting ways. The equation is impressively small, but it's still math doing its thing. Tweak code enough and you'll get something interesting. This doesn't really bring any understanding, it just looks similar some real phenomenons. Studying the behavior of the real thing is better than making virtual particles behave like the real thing, their behavior doesn't explain why it behaves like that, so again nothing new.
Cool coding tho.
Well done ! Kiss goodbye to all simulators dear scientists, dwerg2k just proved them worthless. Just study "the real thing".
Don't you realize that this is actually an attempt to simulate emergent patterns ? With just a simple equation , we get constructs that behave really similarly to life , at least they prove to be quite worthy of having real life analogies. Yeah , sure , math is doing its thing , but isn't math also doing its thing when numerically a wall hits you back as much as you hit it ? Isn't math doing its thing even when Earth orbits the sun in an elliptical orbit ? Mathematical notation is our best shot of understanding how the mathematical universe works , so , even if we someday manage to create a simulated replica of real life life , I can guarantee you math will still be doing its thing.
i messed around with this for a while and something was off that made things not turn out how i expected, and I finally nailed it down.
all particles when within a certain distance act exactly the same, meaning 2 particles that normally would have differing properties when forced into close quarters all act the same. this means that particles will sometimes become tight and mix as if they were the same color if they have similar attractions or repulsers. I think because the force doesn't scale you can't simulate particles weakly interacting with each other. This seems to be because there is a distance of 0 repulsion or attraction that all particles end up with. It may make sense to add a fixed repulsion all particles have with each other. that way you only end up with a distance of 0 repulsion/attraction if the particles are attracted to each other and repulsed particles will never have that valley to rest in.
Another limit is that all particles use the same distance, meaning you can't have particles interacting at different distances, and it would be neat if we could control the drop off from linear, to other forms such as squared or cubed or logarithmic, etc. neat otherwise.
Absolutely brilliant, beautiful and thought provoking!!
Well done!!
1:00 ...no z-position ?
It's 2d....
@@MikeOxolong is it just for demonstration purposes? Or are they saying that these particles are actually physically 2 dimensional?
@@homiespaghetti1522 It's just a program.
@@MikeOxolong come on dude we all know this is a 2D program. the question is why did they avoid programming it in 3D? probably for efficiency of compute time nothing more. as a computer programmer, if you were seeking to model the real world, the first thing you would do is add multiple dimensions and use a vector to describe the trajectory. If you want me to guess I'd say that the emergence of the patterns we see here are much more easily discernible to the human eye in two dimensions than in three. if it was a three dimensional model you would literally have to search through the screen in order to find the "evolving organism" or structure. in terms of proving a point proving it in two-dimensional is sufficient for my attention and I'm confident that the model could be extended to three or more than three dimensions it's just that if you do that these structures are hard to find and visualise
@@SimonRichardMasters Why would he do it in 3D? There's no point. It would be more complicated and add nothing. It's not like he uses it for something it's just a fun program.
While this is cool and eye pleasing, this is NOT how life emerged. The laws of motion here are arbitrary and have no physical justification.
Why do these particle move with a constant velocity?
Why would the particles turn a specific angle?
Why do particles reorient based on the motion of other particles?
All of these basic assumption suggest that the particles were 'alive' to begin with (active, and reactive in the single particle level - a property of 'living systems' and not dead ones). Therefore, whatever emergence we see is not 'dead turning alive' but 'alive becoming more structured'. The interpertation should be of the formation of flocks ( birds, fish, insects etc. ) and not the emergence of life.
Cool system though. Would be interesting to see similar application to liquid crystal phenomena in active solutions.
Obviously, to simulate life requires the computing power of the universe over maybe tens of billions of years.
That is not a question of computational power, but of the basic rules that dictate the laws of motion one uses as an input to the simulation. If the equations that we use are junk, than we can only expect a junk answer. In the case of the above simulation, the equations of motion are arbitrary, and even contradict the long established models for particle motion. In a sense, the rules were almost 'tailored' to produce the outcome wanted.
I argue that even if we had infinite computational power, and an infinite time to run the simulation, we would still get the wrong result because the physics is wrong. That said, this model might be interesting in application to specific active colloidal systems, if justified properly.
@@ohadcohen9813 So if our equations are exactly like the universe, wouldn't it also take exactly as long and as much space to compute?
A computationally expensive algorithm leads to ... expensive computation. Why would you expect the same algorithm as the universe to generate the result *significantly* faster?
I see where the confusion is, we are basically talking about two different things. I'll try and explain myself a little better.
The "right physics" (and I'll explain later why is it in quotation marks) is not a question of accuracy, but of fundamental rules. In analogy, one can think about calculating the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter. With a rough estimate, one might say that this ratio is 3. A person with a better measuring method can conclude that the ratio is 3.1416 and so on. None of these will ultimately be correct - as we know that this ratio is pi, an irrational number, whose definition does not depend on accuracy.
Similarly, when one go about simulating a problem, one has to define the mathematical equations (the laws of motion) that the simulation will follow. These have to correspond to observations in our physical world, the one that we aim to describe. Otherwise, the physics (or, the 'rules') that the simulations obey does not represent whatever we aim to describe.
Just one example from the video in question, the 'rule' that say the particles flip orientation in subsequent time steps if there are no other particle around (alpha=180 degrees). If you observe any physical system (dead, or alive) you will notice that this is never observed. In dilute systems particles move balistically away (like billiard balls clashing and changing direction) while for dense systems, particles diffuse randomly away (like pollen in water) from any initial conditions that you will impose. The simulation does not reproduce any of these phenomena on either dilute or dense limits - bringing the validity of this choice into question.
As for the "right physics": Often the detailed equations (what I believe you referred to as 'exactly the universe'), are actually the wrong approach to solving the problem. True, in principle, one can write accurate equation of motions to all particle in the system and then solve them with infinite accuracy to reproduce a perfect simulation of the universe (which, as you pointed out will take infinite time) - but this is going to be time and energy consuming, and will not necessarily bring new insights. The key is to know what are the important length and time scales, and make smart simplifying assumptions. For example, we can simulate diffusion of a particle in water either from full molecular dynamics of the particle and all other water molecules (solving Newton's equation of motion), or we can solve the Langevin equation for the particle that take the water to be implicit. Note that both methods can share the same accuracy threshold, both will produce similar results, but the latter will do it in much shorter time (seconds compared to days). This is what I believe you referred to as 'algorithm' - or how we solve the problem. But, you must remember that the simpler algorithm does not come out of the blue. Rather, it is strictly derived from the Newtonian dynamics, but uses coarse-graining and averaging to 'throw away' all the non important information that we do not care about (short time colisions between all water molecules for example). Most importantly, the simplification of the latter still reproduces the long time behavior of the former - showing consistency.
To reiterate, it is not accuracy that defines physics, but the basic assumptions that one builds the equations around. If these assumptions yield a result which is inconsistent with other analogous and well proven systems, than the assumptions must be checked.
Feel free to ask any questions, and I will try to explain as best as I can.
the universe and everything within it is conscious.
atoms are conscious.
that's why.
you thought about it too hard.
Let's make a religion out of this
And on the sixth day God created a clump of 690 particles. And it was good.
God I love thinking about emergence. Its just such a fascinating thing. Complexity is just simplicity stacked on top of itself multiple times. Everything we see is just a pattern that we pick up on thats determined by simple rules about one things relation to another thing. Amazing. theres no reason it should even be that way but its unavoidable. damn man. and i aint even high rn
So beautifully clear. Thank you.