Posted by
Russell Standish on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Welcome-Jim-tp526087p526106.html
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 08:55:29PM +0200, G?nther Greindl wrote:
>
> But, as said above, it seems that RR defines mechanism differently. This
> is of course very unfortunate, as it will have people talking past each
> other. Unfortunate also because mechanism is indeed a word which can be
> given a precise, mathematical meaning.
>
Is this in fact the case? When I read "What is Life", my idea of
mechanism was still the same (Turing computability), but felt that the
"Game of Life" was a counter example to his claims (GoL has multiple
inconsistent models). I'm still proposing to write a critique of Chu and
Ho's recent Artificial Life paper along somewhat these lines, but I'm
stuck evolving fuzzy inference systems for now (and I have some mutual
information data mining work stacked up behind it).
Cheers
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
Australia
http://www.hpcoders.com.au----------------------------------------------------------------------------