Maybe Game of Life simply doesn't produce patterns as interesting as Rule 30? With GoL you can only show one generation.
Maybe they were going for the randomness that rule 30 provides (you can build a PRNG from it) but Game of Life doesn't?
http://aperiodical.com/2017/05/right-answer-for-the-wrong-re...
They're professionals like you. Give them some credit.
Imagine that you go to a Shakespeare festival but they only recite T. S. Eliot. When you are disappointed, they say:
"Look these are all poems. They are very similar on the surface, but Eliot somehow sounds better to the modern ear. Long live Shakespeare!"
They tried it out, realized it didn't look great, then looked for what most people who don't have a CS degree would consider similar enough and also looked nice.
This sort of reasonable compromise happens all the time. In the software industry, if you picked ideological purity over pragmatism you wouldn't be a great engineer.
You may have a point if this was a museum celebrating Conway, but it isn't.
Static: http://www.conwaylife.com/w/images/8/89/77p6h1v1.png
Animated: http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/77P6H1V1
My initial quotation was this from the press release:
The architects said the aluminium design is derived from John Conway's Game of Life 'cellular automaton',
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/could-ca...
You can't protect this with some kind of "we all come from gogol's overcoat", mentality. If it is true then they should have put a Gogol image there! ;)
And you may think it's trivial, but it's exactly how - step by step, creative decision by creative decision - we turn each other into idiots with little clue about how reality works. Something that was discussed at length just few hours ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14460013
See also: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect.
I strongly second the quote that I once found on the Internet: "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires".
> "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires"
Regardless of whether the first sentence is accurate (and indeed it certainly seems accurate), I believe the prescription given in the second sentence is not entirely accurate.
Slashing someone's tires is absolutely/always illegal (property damage, or whatever the term is for causing it) ... whereas sabotaging someone's beliefs is illegal iff the "someone" is a court of law or government official, or if the belief-being-sabotaged is about a living person such that a falsehood constitutes slander.
As such, sabotage of beliefs is possible in some cases where tire-slashing is not.
Also, in terms of real-world consequences, sabotaging someone's thinking can be very, very much worse than just breaking their car.
I see.
> Don't promote less than maximally accurate beliefs unless you hate someone so much you'd be willing to go and slash their tires.
Yet is it not conceivable to hate someone thoroughly, but not enough to be willing to sacrifice one's entire career/reputation/criminal-record by committing any kind of actual crime?
I really do not understand the reasoning behind this statement.
Sabotage of the belief system and slashing tires are very different. Fundamentally different I would say.
Slashing tires leads to an outcome that becomes very quickly obvious to the victim and is easily repairable.
Sabotage of the belief system goes very likely unnoticed to a person and can last for hundreds generations and is very difficult to repair.
Sabotage of beliefs is not understood to be a crime.
If people understood how much damage it could cause then they perhaps would reconsider it.
They didn't; e.g. playing the lottery as an adult is both legal and insanely idiotic. (Don't misunderstand me; I do like it that the insanely idiotic are able to self-select themselves away from their money with such ease.)
But on the other hand, "legally can and causes more utility gain per unit time than any other course of action" ... does indeed imply "should".
(And unless you're really silly, "utility gain" simplifies to "monetary gain".)
Of course, I'm not trying to imply that sabotage-of-beliefs is that powerful an action; indeed, my ultimate conclusion is that neither tire-slashing nor sabotage-of-beliefs present a compelling benefit-per-cost.
Yeah, that's why I always turn down my friends when they ask if I want to go see a movie. Monetarily, it's nothing but a loss, and I would have to be "really silly" to value an entertaining experience.
Or if you're doing it for personal gain, in which case it may be fraud.
OOoh, disagree. What yields purity is the clash of a pure vision with the constraints of reality. You can't be really "pragmatic" until you've tried really hard to "do the right thing" and failed and looked for alternatives. If you don't even try, you're not being "pragmatic"; just lazy and boring.
What if they decided to go with Rule30 instead of GoL, precisely because they knew there'd be geeks out here that would be arguing about these things, infinitely, while a majority of people will just think its a great example of the kind of mathematical complexity that exists in the universe, either way you look at it?
People like "alternative facts" - both on the believer and the debater side, so give em' what they want for fun and profit? :) That is a fine point, but I simply do not like the value system behind it: to be ignorant or pretend to be ignorant because that's what people like
You were already given several times the same reasonable explanation. It looks like GoL, and if the architects had said "we used 'rule 30'", absolutely no one would have had a clue what they are talking about. By saying they were inspired by GoL, at least a few people will think 'I vaguely heard of that, it's cool'. It's called pedagogy. Sometimes, being 100% accurate is not helpful.
It is just my opinion - it is not hard science but art, so maybe no one can be right here: you can just choose not to read my comments if you anticipate in advance that you will disagree ;)
edit: By the way they not said "inspired" by GoL but that they derived the pattern from it. I admit I'm not a native english speaker but I feel some difference... For you if it is the same, or it is fine "pedagogically" then good for you.
Ha ha. There's professional courtesy, but at the same time there are annoying truths (like rampant ignorance perhaps only barely above the general population, depending on the profession) we don't like to discuss in an unspoken agreement.
Honestly it just seems like a poorly communicated marketing blurb more than anything else. They wanted to say it's based on cellular automata because they're cool, and they can link the location to a guy somewhat famous even in the general population for something to do with automata (under the phrase GoL). An analogous situation might be some architecture using a Sierpinski pattern and having a blurb on how they derived it from fractals, and could relate the location to Mandelbrot.
You can build a PRNG in Game of Life, since you can build a Turing Machine.
The only possible exception we know of is quantum computers.