On Creating Imaginary Worlds: Questions and Answers

[Zubi-Ondo]

Originally Posted by Culhwch

I think lots of people on diets cheat. Though I'm not certain 'diety' is the proper descriptive term for them. Dieter, perhaps?

Maybe it was all of that world-building that made them too hungry??

[Zubi-Ondo]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

What we have here are two independent systems interacting with each other: the environment of a world and the ability of organisms to evolve.

Even with the interaction of two simple, deterministic systems, it can become impossible to determine any given outcome from the start conditions. But these are not simple systems: climate itself is chaotic and I suspect the same is true of genetics, in that it can come up with any number of "solutions" to a given "problem".

With no assumptions made, can I ask what your definition of deterministic is in this context? (The tie-in with determinism and philosophy could open a can of worms, so it's possibly a good idea to clarify up front)

Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe I understand what you are saying is that even when the initial conditions are known, it's impossible to predict the future chain of events, and how the two systems will interact based on all of the unknowns involved. Since there are variables inside each system, and there are variables in the interactions between the systems externally. (Is that another way to say it?)

- Z.

[Ursa major]

Try this:

Deterministic system (mathematics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Zubi-Ondo]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

Try this:

Deterministic system (mathematics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, then it sounds like what you are saying is that the two systems are not deterministic. (in the sense that the same starting conditions will not always produce the same results) Is that it?

[Zubi-Ondo]

Frankly, I find determinism in a philosophical sense rather daft...

I rather agree.

[Ursa major]

Yes (and no).

The climate is certainly not deterministic - it has too many diverse components to allow any allow precise and accurate predictions. Whether genetics is any way deterministic is hard to say - my guess is that it isn't, again because of its complexity - and then there's that can of worms concerning the impact of the (local) environment on development ("nature versus nurture"), even where environment factors aren't obviously involved (as they are for those species where temperature determines gender selection).

My actual point was that two independent systems, even where they are perfectly deterministic, can produce non-deterministic results when they interact; where at least one of them is chaotic, there can't be a predefined result.

[lin robinson]

Determinism does not mean simple, or predictable.

The idea that a "system" can be "chaotic" is an interesting concept.

[Zubi-Ondo]

Sorry, I'm out of time - I'm baby sitting today (nurture).

- Z.

[Ursa major]

The idea that a very complex arrangement of independent systems (or whatever you'd like to all them) could lead, many generations later, with a predefined result is even more "interesting".

The proposed storyline (dinosaurs predominate everywhere apart from the one place where a disaster lets mammals "take over" - sorry if that's paraphrasing it one or two steps too far) really requires something more than the setting up the start conditions: it needs something to nudge things in the right direction on all of those worlds. Perhaps the story could end by the dinosaurs (or whatever) realising that something else has been going on....


And I too have to be elsewhere, Z.

[TorrnT]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

Anyway: back to the current discussion.

What we have here are two independent systems interacting with each other: the environment of a world and the ability of organisms to evolve.

Even with the interaction of two simple, deterministic systems, it can become impossible to determine any given outcome from the start conditions. But these are not simple systems: climate itself is chaotic and I suspect the same is true of genetics, in that it can come up with any number of "solutions" to a given "problem".

Ahh.. but you can inhibit certain processes, presently scientists are working on inhibitors that may lock out certain mutated genes that cause hereditary illnesses, is it difficult to believe such a process (from a much more advanced race of humans) could not be embedded within atoms of a certain molecular chain? not to direct the process of evolution but to inhibit other directions.
So as the bacteria evolves, the Strain is always present only becoming active when a certain criteria is met.
For example...insects can only grow so big, Dinosaurs brains only can grow so large etc.( i could go into detail on how this is achieved by limiting certain hormones which are needed for particular areas of growth)
The diversity of life, the evolution of so many genus, is natures way of trying to shake off those restrictions, unto a creature evolves without those restrictions.
(Is any one familiar with bump mapping in the world of 3d modelling?.. With the right technology you could bump map human DNA, place the information within selected atoms so no restrictions would impede the growth of any creatures with DNA that matched areas of the bump map)
This is the long shot I was heading towards, the story ends shortly after the bacteria is created and designated for earth.
The new story is within us, is there a possibility? were we loosely guided to become dominant through DNA data control? (the use of inhibitors etched on atoms within amino acid strains).
This is not a theory, it is a story I concocted to open doors to annoying or frightening possibilities.
(I must say, I am pleased, with so many reply posts, my biggest mistake was to think this could be a short story, unfortunately the project I am working on takes precedence and this story needs much more research and work to take the rough edges off, however... I will tinker with it as a hobby unto I have some free time in a couple of years...to work on it earnestly)

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by TorrnT

This is not a theory, it is a story I concocted to open doors to annoying or frightening possibilities.

So you're not a mad scientist beavering away in an underground lab.


Seriously, though, my disbelief can't be suspended as far as your plot requires.

Turn it into a big budget film, however, and I'd accept the premise with no problems at all - as long as the action was fast and the music loud enough. (This consumer is fickle. )

[TorrnT]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

Seriously, though, my disbelief can't be suspended as far as your plot requires.

LOL....
Yeah it really is out there in the wilderness lost to its own contrivance.

But I will continue to tweak at it when I find the time, who knows what science may discover within the next few years that may or may not help me give the concept more... credence.
(5 years ago many would have laughed at the idea you could use atoms as data storage... now I need noble prize winners in biology/genetics..LOL)

PS. Initially I would not be at all pleased if our first encounter with an intelligent alien race were theropods.

[Zubi-Ondo]

Originally Posted by lin robinson

Determinism does not mean simple, or predictable.

The idea that a "system" can be "chaotic" is an interesting concept.

Yes, quite.

Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- Z.

[Ruin]

I have to say I myself am a determinist, in that I believe that all actions are necessarily going to happen due to the circumstances in which they occur.

The climate is certainly not deterministic - it has too many diverse components to allow any allow precise and accurate predictions.

I would argue that even though the conditions are too complex for us to presently calculate, this does not mean it is not deterministic. If there are two scenarios, with exactly the same conditions and components in every way, they would still progress in the same ways.

Whether genetics is any way deterministic is hard to say - my guess is that it isn't, again because of its complexity - and then there's that can of worms concerning the impact of the (local) environment on development ("nature versus nurture"), even where environment factors aren't obviously involved (as they are for those species where temperature determines gender selection).

Genetics aren't deterministic in terms of the phenotype (outward appearance) of an organism, instead they simply bind the extent to which this can vary due to external factors. Two people with the genes for shortness will be short no matter where they grow up, or how. Two people with genes for height will be tall only if they are well nurtured, not if they do not have the nutrients they need. The gene simply sets the boundary to their height, it does not give them an exact figure.
However, they are still deterministic to an extent, as if the two are raised in absolutely the same conditions, experiencing exactly the same things, and have exactly the same genes. They will be the same person.

My actual point was that two independent systems, even where they are perfectly deterministic, can produce non-deterministic results when they interact; where at least one of them is chaotic, there can't be a predefined result.

I disagree, if both systems are absolutely deterministic, and they are interacted in a predetermined way, then they will produce a predetermined result.

[Hilarious Joke]

I agree with Ruin. I never realised it, but I am a determinist. This is a proud day .