Code center > Suggestions
Non-Determinstic Bot DNA flow
Botsareus:
--- Quote ---(bots like the One will never evolve in an evo sim, so there's simply no problem)
--- End quote ---
I am not too sure about that from time to time...
--- Quote ---In this I am 100% on the side of complexity. It has always been my beleif that DB is WAY to simplistic and I have always argued for adding more complexity to the system.
--- End quote ---
I hate that idea Num, and I also hate the fact that you are turning DB into a programers dream vedio game. It is an alife sim after all... I only favor complexity when it gives more solutions then problems. solutions in areas like bioevolution are my main prefereance. (sorry)
--- Quote ---5. And, if you believe what Botsareus keeps going on and on and on and on about, "mutations don't work!!!!1111".
--- End quote ---
Sorry, Scratch that one, I was confused back in my bad english days that "evolution" and "mutation" is the same thing. Mostly back then I was refering to "evolution" not "mutation".
--- Quote ---Mullers Rachet what ever you all put into this haven't even been proven in real biological creatures
--- End quote ---
Greven, I don't think anyone intentonaly put muller's into db. It just happend that way.
But I am really really interested in knowning why it is not proven in real life yet. I hope you have some explonations of that....
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---Mutations in DB are almost lethal becuase of the highly complex structure of the vitual bot CPU (the bots internal building, the stack and the memory.) and the DNA language. Mullers Rachet what ever you all put into this haven't even been proven in real biological creatures and have only partial been proven in digital organisms.
--- End quote ---
I could be misreading you, but I think you have this totally backwards.
Mueller's ratchet is not explicitly programmed into Darwinbots. It's simply a fact of life for all asexually reproducing creatures.
That is, Darwinbots is subject to Mueller's ratchet because it's an accurate simulation of asexual organisms. Which is encouraging-- sort of.
Real organisms are indeed influenced by Mueller's Ratchet, wiki it if you don't believe me. Most organisms, however, have found ways around it through Sexual reproduction and horizontal gene transfer, which the bots are sort of lacking (sexual repro is disabled in 2.4 because the code needed to be rewritten to conform to the new DNA coding mechanisms).
It is true that many mutations are lethal in DB, but guess what! This is true of real life to! Alot of your DNA is coding for basic things like converting glucose into pyruvate, etc. These have not changed much in millions of years because any mutation in these are quite lethal.
I could be missing the mark, but I'd say that you're really complaining that DB models real life too well. Real life is boring, and real evolution takes a long, long time.
But I've kind of grown attached to real life. Darwinbots is emulating the rules of real life, trying to capture the same essence. Evolution sims take alot of patience. No one expects their E Coli to evolve overnight, and you shouldn't expect the bots to either. Shvarz has run some very convincing simulations in the millions of cycles, and his bots definately show evolution at work.
--- Quote ---Were is the GRID everyone has been talking about since the dawn of time?
Were is the metabolism everyone has been talking about since everyonce began talking about the grid?
--- End quote ---
Bogged down in technical details. Do you realize how much memory it would take to do the grid like how everyone wanted? Several hundred megs of RAM. HUNDRED. And then if DB is ever expanded into 3D...
It's been in the back of my mind, juggling all the pieces. I think it's starting to coallesce, and the answer is baby steps towards full metabolism and the grid. Which is what I've been doing.
--- Quote ---Instead we get --> planteaters singularities, smiliy-mode, shapes-mode, electricity (not implemented yet, but who knows), even Num began discussion Relativity Mode, Zelos began a thread about naming DB-units, Distributed Programming the list goes ever on....
--- End quote ---
Most of those things take no time. Planet Eaters was a sort of "I'm redesigning the physics engine, I could totally throw this in". Took me two hours. That includes debugging. Smiley mode was PY's thing, and was him practicing with different drawing things you can do in VB to see how practical adding a dimension of shape would be to DB.
For every silly idea that's just fun, I program 2 hugely sophisticated features that aren't self evident. Redesigning the DNA system is a huge one. Redesigning mutations to be more in line with natural modes and other ALife programs (like Avida) another.
Those huge things take many, many hours. Should I break down the time I spend programming so you guys get an idea of how it works?
--- Quote ---I havent been the best my self, but come on, lets begin discussion the details in the grid, metabolism, no longer have an veggies definition, that bots can turn veggies and vice versa.
Or can it be that it will be confusing with all this to the combat sims, and thereby being left out???
--- End quote ---
That's what that nice little subforum is for. In suggestions. It's so important it gets its own subforum. Don't blame me if no one posts in there.
--- Quote ---And don't give me an answer about porting the code to C, or that it is boring.
--- End quote ---
Actually, porting it to C has gotten me two other programmers interested in programming. It's going to be well worth the effort.
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---In short when generalizing, you lose much specialization ( :P ). You can do a little of this, and a little of that and so on. But nothing more.
And even the above quote don't even give any meaning. Artificial Life is much more that just simulation, what about GP, EP, other GA's etc.
--- End quote ---
I only recognize GA (genetic algorithm), don't know the other acronyms...
I think this is where the metaphor breaks down. They say proof by example is fraud... In real life, a swiss army knife can't have, say, a jackhammer attachment. In code, adding new and larger things only increases download size, and sometimes simulation speed. Simulation speed much more rarely, and download size... we're already under 2 megs. So tiny...
Darwinbots is like a swiss army knife with access to hammer space (wiki hammer space if you don't know what it is).
Point to something that is in Darwinbots that specifically precludes the adding of specialization in something else.
I say there is nothing. Again, you may think our priorities are misplaced, but I dare say at worst we are simply not advancing the program, not making it worse.
Point to another ALife sim that has a Turing complete DNA language (say Avida or Tierra, etc.) that allows for something that Darwinbots can not possibly do. Again, I say there is nothing.
There are things that they can do that we aren't doing, but only because we haven't programmed them yet! Their main advantage is speed. Avida can run thousands of generations in a single hour.
That said, Darwinbots can never be like Darwinpond/Genepool, and have incredibly fast evolution. Why? Because Darwinpond/Genepool only mutate maybe 7 variables. There is no behavior evolution, only technique. That is, it's an excercise in optimization.
That is something that Darwinbots is not, and something that any Turing Complete DNA language Alife Sim can never do as well as the simpler simulations. But that's okay, because optimization is only so impressive.
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---In this I am 100% on the side of complexity. It has always been my beleif that DB is WAY to simplistic and I have always argued for adding more complexity to the system.
--- End quote ---
I hate that idea Num, and I also hate the fact that you are turning DB into a programers dream vedio game. It is an alife sim after all... I only favor complexity when it gives more solutions then problems. solutions in areas like bioevolution are my main prefereance. (sorry)
--- End quote ---
PY said that, not me <_< I still agree though...
Everyone thinks I am some rogue programmer, but I'm not! I understand ALife very well. I understand biology quite well, better than most that aren't involved in it. And where I don't know something, I ask. shvarz has been very good at keeping us on track biologically speaking.
If you had any idea how complex even a simple bacteria is...
Darwinbots is simple. So painfully simple. Where you see a jungle I see a desert. I believe I said this before, in this exact same post even.
I will strive each day to make Darwinbots more complex.
I mean this in the proper definition, as apart from Complicated.
I will strive each day to make Darwinbots less complicated and more complex.
edit: Where I said that.
Griz:
quoting Greven:
--- Quote ---I always thought that I was stupid about thinking DB going more into combat that evolution.
--- End quote ---
nope ...
unfortunately, I'm afraid you are correct in your
accessment of DB in it's present incarnation.
I'm with Carlo on this ...
his vision of what an alife/evolution sim should be
is right on, imo, and how I envision it as well.
but ...
it doesn't matter ...
it's not going to happen.
and that doesn't matter either ...
it's just a simulation ...
having nothing to do with reality or real life ...
and of no real importance.
ole ma nature is running her own experiment ...
and in that one ...
we all get to be part of it and contribute to where it goes. ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version