Art, Science, and Evolution: Artificial Life or Imitation Game?
When Erwin Schrödinger, a famous Austrian physicist, published his book “What is Life? (The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell)” in 1944, it meant a radical change in how the living organism was understood by science.
The view on the subject, by an “outsider from the other faculty”, began the development and expansion of a new field, Molecular Biology. Schrödinger, being naturally also a mathematician, noticed structural relationships between chemical and organic elements, and described possible ways of modeling them. He also, using inductive reasoning, predicted a structure, a transforming principle, described later as a DNA molecule.
“The laws of physics, as we know them, are statistical laws. They have a lot to do with the natural tendency of things to go over into disorder.” (Schrödinger)
Although Schrödinger was not an inventor of the concept, since it was discussed generations before him, his approach meant the real difference and influenced research in many areas. Certain properties of this “self-organizing” of molecules fascinated also founding fathers of the digital computer era, especially Norbert Wiener and Alan Mathison Turing.
Alan Turing was interested in theoretical biology, and the mathematics behind it — especially in the works of D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson.
He thought that the reaction-diffusion system (which can be described as an oscillating chemical reaction) is accountable for pattern formation in nature, and a similar effect could be in play, forming other organic structures.
In his work “The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis” — published in 1952 — he is using partial differential equations for his reaction models, effectively combining mathematics. physics, chemistry, biology… and art.
“The biologist, as well as the philosopher, learns to recognise that the whole is not merely the sum of its parts.”
Darcy Wentworth Thompson)
A lot of these ideas resided in the theoretical realm at the time. Now, we are able to visualize and model these phenomena in detail and depth, and this could be true even more with the advent of quantum computers.
Now we can calculate evolution mathematically on digital computers, as Turing envisioned. But only in a sense of such a mathematical task. Because in this case, the assignment influences the result. The changes in an organism — morphogenesis or evolution — does not seem to be purely mechanical in natura. We can create a convincing illusion — because we know the partial processes from our empiric research and observation.
The patterns are conforming to aesthetics embedded into the algorithm, similarly to reproducing organisms conforming to the gene sequence.
“Most of an organism, most of’ the time, is developing from one pattern into another, rather than from homogeneity into a pattern.”
(Turing)
We can theoretically simulate a complex organic process on a quantum computer of the future, even if we struggle with mere elemental models at the present.
Therefore, a couple of questions emerge. When we will create such a convincing model of organic reality, that it will conform to all possible modes of scrutiny, can we still call it a simulation? Where is the dividing line between simulating reality, and creating it?
Published By Daniel Sandner, danielsandner.portfoliobox.net, Creary gallery of algorithmic experiments creary.net
Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com.
