Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uknet!bcc.ac.uk!uu-igor-mac.open.ac.uk!user
From: A.J.Hirst@uk.ac.open (Tony Hirst)
Subject: Re: a theoretical biology for alife...
Sender: news@ucl.ac.uk (Usenet News System)
Message-ID: <A.J.Hirst-110495114921@uu-igor-mac.open.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 11:49:21 GMT
References: <A.J.Hirst-280395145129@uu-igor-mac.open.ac.uk> 	<3l9erl$632@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <HIEBELER.95Mar29104126@hershey.harvard.edu> <simonb.796889110@extro>
Organization: HCRL, The Open University, UK
Followup-To: comp.ai.alife
Lines: 43

In article <simonb.796889110@extro>, simonb@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (No way!
Way!) wrote:

> hiebeler@husc.harvard.edu (Dave Hiebeler) writes:
> 
> >  Regarding the original question, however, even with the higher level
> >models, (mathematical) ecologists haven't necessarily stuck with
> >life-as-it-is all the time.  Once you've developed the framework of a
> >model, you are free to ask questions about the model itself even for
> >parameter values which may be biologically unrealistic, saying "well
> >what if the parameters *could* have these values?".  Granted, most
> >people who tie the models back into biology (rather than writing a
> >purely theoretical paper about the models themselves) generally do
> >restrict themselves to parameter regimes that reflect observed
> >biological systems.
> 
> It is interesting to remember R. A. Fisher's comment that in order to
> understand why there are only 2 sexes, it is instructive to examine what
> would happen if there were seven sexes. Exploring biologically unrealistic
> parameter spaces can shed light on what we observe in real systems. But
> I think we always have to come back to testing our hypotheses against 
> nature. Otherwise we run the risk of leaving the realm of science altogether.
> Our theories and models may look elegant, but they won't mean very much.
> 
> Simon.
> 

If we accept as valid arguments for life in a computational medium, then in
alife we have the opportunity for 'life engineering' using mechanisms not
supported by biology, but valid and implementable in a computational
environment. In such a case, are we leaving the realm of science for
technology, or are we creating a 'historical science' dependent on the
existence of a readily observable (to us) mathematical/computational
reality?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 All opinions etc etc...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      | Tony Hirst ("Monty")          | e-mail:  A.J.Hirst@open.ac.uk
      |   
       -------------------------------------------------------------------
      | "There is no meaning..."         "Science is a subset of art..."
       -------------------------------------------------------------------
