What do you mean?

@@gdavis9296 symmetric means that two particles either attract each other or repel each other. Asymmetric means that one attracts while the other repels; they don't have the same effect on each other.

Innovative? Been since ever!

Interestingly, all particle interactions in the universe are symmetric. Its why we do not have infinite movers which can accelerate without an external force being inputted.

Each particle has it's pair, whom it interacts with. Locally there may be an area with more particles than other, but on an universal scale everything is homogeneous and evenly distributed. Most Galaxies we see started formation when the universe was the size of Atoms, because Locally some parts were slightly denser than others for a fraction of time then went back to normal, so it is really interesting

I need to know how much they are attracted

Great comment that addresses the concerns I have expressed in my own observations in this thread

Are there videos on it ? UKposts turned up nothing but videos on Buddhism and chemistry

:) Yes! buddhaman.itch.io/tims-insane-meta-universe

@@tom-mohr Woah, please look at this more!!!

😆😆😆

undergrad organic chemistry

It's actually quite simple what is happening here. It only seems complex when you start trying to describe it with words.

@@TalkAboutaTrapstar it quite literally turns complex by the very scientific definition of the word. Everything is on a spectum, with chaotic noise on one end, and rigid order on the other. Both noise and order are referred to as simple states, low entropy. Noise is too chaotic and therefore too unstable to produce complexity, while order is too rigid and therefore cant change, so it cannot produce complexity either. The more you diverge from either side, the more complex your systems can be, regardless of the underlying simplicity of the rule set. Being able to form structures or patterns is hereby referred to as complexity. We are currently researching the critical point on which complexity is almost stable, the self organising criticality point, where it is both noisy enough to change, but rigid enough to be stable, and with the right mix, you can have a stable system that evolves over time and reacts to outside influence, such as stimuli or environmental changes, such as found in many different fields across science and the universe. The self organisation of neurons, the stability of ecosystems, evolution, chemistry, the actual large scale behaviour of animals and humans, in all of these we can observe those complex, self organising patterns. How many different rules are involved in a given systems formation is irrelevant by this definition of the word complexity, as complexity only refers to the behaviour or structure formation, and not the number of steps required to get there. I hope this was an interesting read, and if you wish to know more: Self organising criticality or simply Self organisation are fantastic terms to research. Having a good professor explain in detail why both chaos and order are just different sides of the same coin, and that everything meaningful happens in between the two, and then pointing at different examples in the real world in which this behaviour can be observed can be an ethereal experience. Or terrifying, if you begin to play with the implications a bit and connect them to existing knowledge in other fields of science, such as our lack of conscious decision making in neuroscience. It can be quite a thing to ponder over regardless

@@MrMegaMetroid that was a good write-up; thanks homie. Just be careful appropriating terms; saying highly ordered states have low entropy is poor form. I know what you mean, but it's important not to conglate entropy with bistable equilibrium

almost as if the universe was catered for the creation of life.

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/nnV1pZqtgoVmumQ.html a program that attempts to simulate the evolution from single celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms

Youre definitely not alone, i've been interested about this exact thing for a good while and this video is exactly what i needed lol

If you are interested in that type of code I highly recommend researching bioinformatics, which is like a combination of computer science and microbiology. Truly fascinating stuff, it's where a lot of our knowledge about DNA comes from. After all, DNA is just code for living beings.

Crick

I thought I was alone until I saw this, it's nice to see that other people find interests in this.

Mine is really bad

Thank you;)!

What concept is being illustrated here exactly?

Thanks :) Yes -- Particle Life is generally not adhering to Newton's third law, except if the matrix is symmetrical. But under symmetrical matrices, not much life-like behavior is emerging in Particle Life. Nature, on the other side, somehow manages to get this done even with symmetrical forces! So yes, I totally agree here.

Real-life particle rules don't evolve. These bigger structures shown in the video (like the "worm") can work together to make something like a cell, but it would be massive since this video is showing individual subatomic particles. To show real evolution, you would need enough computing power to simulate things on the order of cells, which are crazy complex (one human cell has billions of DNA codons for example, and there are tons of molecules like proteins and fats and carbohydrates all interacting). It would also, like real life, take millions of years of simulated compute time for actual life to emerge which would not be doable unless the computer is fast enough to simulate millions of years in a shorter time with GPUs or something.

You should look into Wolfram's Physics Model. I've studied Complex Systems and Emergence for a very long time. And in that research, everything lead, like a trail of bread crumbs, to the Wolfram Model being the true theory of reality. Perhaps to get your mind going : In the Wolfram Model of Physics, the universe is thought of as a kind of Turing Machine-like computation, running all possible rules...and that these rules are computationally equivalent (capable of doing computation of equivalent sophistication : Turing universal computations ) I would highly suggest reading his Book New Kind of Science, and looking up the NKS series here on UKposts where he reads the book along with you. In that book, He basically ran solid experiments on cellular automata, and derived principles based on the behavior he observed that are ground breaking : "That if the universe is computational, then all systems that exist are equivalent." And he proves this by running simple rules, and proving that they can compute Turing universal computation; the maximal ceiling for complexity. If you think about the implication of that for a moment, you realize that every question you have about complex systems...emergence...relativity are unified by the existence of such a principle, and he predicted back then that he could make a theory of physics based on those experiments...and 20 years later he did just that. Cheers,

@@matthewe3813 Yes, I completely understand that simulating real-life evolution would require immense computing power and time. My intention wasn't to get a faithful representation of life evolution, but rather to experiment and see what rule evolution could bring. Consider that evolutionary algorithms are just a stripped-down version of actual evolution, yet they are able to perform incredible feats in much shorter times. I think it would be interesting to see what new structures or patterns emerge from evolving the particle rules, and what insights we can gain from that.

@@NightmareCourtPictures I totally agree with you on the significance of Wolfram's Physics Model! I have been following and appreciating the development of his theory since the beginning as well. I think emergence plays a crucial role in everything in the universe, and it's truly underappreciated. I believe it should be taught in elementary school to give future generations a better understanding of how the world works. The idea that everything in the universe can be reduced to simple computational rules is truly groundbreaking and has far-reaching implications. Thanks for sharing this with me, it's always exciting to discuss these topics with someone who shares the same interest.

@@nembobuldrini To simulate real life evolution you should be God. But we will never reach that. We only make simpler versions, copying from what we are allowed to know. To simulate real life "evolution" you should simulate real life. And you don't know what dark matter is, among many other things. How did those evolve? We keep setting the systems up, perhaps it's not because of our lack of resources, but because this system also was set up. This video doesn't show evolution as materialists claim it happened, it shows a relatively wise "creator" setting rules that allow complexity to emerge. Evolution as to say adaptation is undeniable, because we see how species change, and because the scripture literally says that we evolve in the wombs, creation after creation. But as the scripture says, it still is creation, every evolutionary stage is a new creation. 71:13-14 What is the matter with you that you are not in awe of the Majesty of Allah(God), when He truly created you in stages ? - Dr. Mustafa Khattab, the Clear Quran When I was an agnostic, I always found simulations amazing and very interesting, I think people just don't realize that not all religion is fake, and that discipline is indeed good for you, even if some people hate it since they believe it limits their "freedom", be it of thinking or in general. But, i think you can think freely still, you just need to have evidence, as the Quran says, and not wonder in assumptions. If you have evidence for your beliefs, then you are cool. But few people consider actual evidence when they contradict their beliefs (be it atheism or whatever) and they are tempted to follow their desires based on assumptions. I hope you like the comment, don't want to pressure anyone but since you mentioned the criteria of what would be needed to simulate evolution i kinda sneak this in haha, peace.

I haven't looked at the code, but my guess is that the distance limit was put in place so that larger particle counts could be simulated. If the forces acted over too large of a distance then the program would have to calculate the attraction and repulsion of hundreds of thousands of particles against each other. This could probably be resolved with some of the techniques used by n-body gravity simulation programs which basically lump distant particles into regions. I'm sure that could be implemented here, but it would probably pose a great deal of challenges just because there are so many interaction combinations which might negatively affect the performance. I'm not saying it's impossible, just challenging. If I wasn't already working on something I might take a crack at it myself, but I will leave that to someone more motivated than myself. It might also be interesting to see if smoothing the attraction curve would create any interesting behaviors, but again, doing so could affect performance.

> _"What an interesting time to be wearing a meat suit! 🍖"_ wow, that's an interesting, but perfectly valid way of putting that.

@@yash1152 Thanks 😊 👍

What do you mean by "wearing a meat suit"?

@Sieni Eläin Hi, Sieni, "wearing a meat suit" is a post-modernist, semi popular way of describing being alive! It is referring to the somewhat popular Judeo/Christian belief that we are eternal souls living in an impermanent physical body. Thus, in a tongue-in-cheek and humorous way we can say we wear "meat suits"(the body) as we wear clothes. Actually, the ancient Vedic Indian tradition also teaches the same thing. Whether or not that is factually true is beside the point. It's just a different way to speak of being alive. That was how I used the term. Here is the Urbane Dictionary version.... The human body, especially one's flesh, suggesting the burdens of corporeality for an otherwise ethereal being. "Why did I have to be reincarnated into this meat suit?" I hope I have answered your question, however you are welcome to ask me anything. I am better than Chat GPT, a small prompt and I will generate masses of human content! Lol.

@@That_Freedom_Guy I- I........ lol

Well if you have billions of atoms it's no longer simple.

@@Brukrex rules are simple, state is not.

You are making the assumption that other ‘bubbles’ of existence with starting parameters different from our laws of physics can’t possibly exist outside the horizon of our observable universe. Earth seems ‘tuned’ for life from our perspective until you take into account the uncountably vast numbers of planets out there which are completely unsuited to developing any form of life. For all we know our type of universe isn’t even particularly hospitable for life when compared to other universes; it might just be that beings like us only develop to have this conversation in universes with laws that resemble ours.

Great point, but from an engineering perspective, the vast universe not habitable to life could just be God’s workshop with crap all over the place. Creating a biological supercomputer brain with 100 trillion connections from scratch is an enormous undertaking that takes ~15B years, of course it’ll make a mess and require a lot of space, parts, and time. Is it crazy to think that our phones and computers have teams of super talented engineers, but we as humans, who designed and created that technology, somehow don’t have our own engineer? Perhaps God is in a bubble of existence with bigger more dense atoms, that don’t melt during the early stages of the Big Bang when everything is super hot plasma so he can interact with our matter in some way without melting. Maybe he still interacts with our matter in some way. Maybe he made us because our specific matter and neurons can compute in ways that his can’t and that’s why he loves us. Maybe part of the universe is actually habitable given the right technology and he wants us to create technology here to get there, and make different more advanced technology there with the different resources.