The genetic algorithm and its possible applications - page 6
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The second (if I am not mistaken) law of Dialectics states that quantity (value) passes into quality (parameter/property). In this case, the optimization process, after n-number of iterations, must "automatically" generate new parameters as a "by-product" of its cycle. Further, resulting parameters can "clump" into groups and form new systems that will be gradually drawn into the "cauldron" of optimization and the process repeats again. A convection production of species with increasing complexity is obtained, moving on to further stages of evolution - cloning, crossbreeding, selection, etc...
How dialectics works in chemical and biological processes at the micro level I do not know, but in theory it all fits...))
I think it is unlikely. Based on the concept of GA, identical structures - clones of the same system with different parameter values - can interbreed. Different individuals within the same environment cannot interbreed in Nature either. This natural biological constraint stops the emergence of ridiculous, non-viable freaks that are meaningless to the ecosystem. Such "experiments" always end in failure and are only suitable for laboratory research. GA imitates biology and therefore, does not deviate from the principles of interbreeding, inheritance and selection.
The question, from a theoretical point of view, is very interesting. Evolution creates not only "optimised" versions of creatures in the course of their "adjustment" to conditions, but also fundamentally new species. Where do they come from if interspecies interbreeding is impossible? So they come from natural mutations. But, - mutation is a change in existing genes, not acquisition of new ones. That is, - the set cannot be increased, and "calibration" only adapts (optimizes) the living species. Where do new and more complex creatures come from?
Even if we make an algorithm randomly "cast" parameters into arbitrary systems and also randomly find an optimization target (fitness function) for them, what can it give us?
Agenetic algorithm is more perfect because it has no limitations, unlike a natural prototype.
About adaptability - evolution does not only follow the path of perfection (stronger, faster, tougher), but also the path of inevitable "deterioration". So, for example, nature could have created a monster the size of a killer whale, with a chitinous shell (the best material in combination of strength and weight), and with legs, even the cubs of such a species would have been invulnerable, but this did not happen, because very quickly the food base would have run out and all other species would have been destroyed on the planet and the species of this monster would have eaten itself in the end. That is why whales, felines and other predators are exactly the size and degree of vulnerability that would ensure survival. Vulnerability of a species is a necessary characteristic for survival, and invulnerable species starve to death. Humans are virtually invulnerable and can easily be pushed to the brink of extinction by the destruction of their 'food base'.
The genetic algorithm is more perfect because it has no limitations, unlike the natural prototype.
About adaptability - evolution is not only about perfection (stronger, faster, tougher), but also about inevitable "deterioration". So, for example, nature could have created a monster the size of a killer whale, with a chitinous shell (the best material in combination of strength and weight), and with legs, even the cubs of such a species would have been invulnerable, but this did not happen, because very quickly the food base would have run out and all other species would have been destroyed on the planet and the species of this monster would have eaten itself in the end. That is why whales, felines and other predators are exactly the size and degree of vulnerability that would ensure survival. Vulnerability of a species is a necessary characteristic for survival.
I agree about evolution and the necessary vulnerability of creatures. Just about the perfection of the GA is not. I believe it is only a tracing and very limited.
I am generally surprised at the evolutionary path Nature has chosen. After all, living species exist ONLY in an energetically charged environment (oxygen, chemicals consumed with food and water) and have no autonomous and independent source within. This is a much better solution. Make one energy source inside each being based on some powerful reaction (nuclear or chemical) and the being will become independent of oxygen, water, food and other things. Will be able to live in space and other conditions impossible for us.
For some reason, Nature did not go that way...
I agree about evolution and the necessary vulnerability of creatures. Only about the perfection of GA is not. I believe it is only a travesty and a very limited one.
I am generally surprised at the evolutionary path Nature has chosen. After all, living species exist ONLY in an energetically charged environment (oxygen, chemicals consumed with food and water) and have no autonomous and independent source within. This is a much better solution. Make one energy source inside each being based on some powerful reaction (nuclear or chemical) and the being will become independent of oxygen, water, food and other things. Will be able to live in space and other conditions impossible for us.
For some reason, Nature didn't go that way...
there are autonomous beings - bacteria with cholophilus. and some beings do not need oxygen and can survive in absolute cold as well as 600-800c in pressurized water.
the natural evolutionary mechanism is limited to combinations of amino acids and ha only limited by the imagination of its users.
there are autonomous creatures - bacteria with cholophilus. and some creatures do not need oxygen and can survive in absolute cold as well as in 600-800c pressurised water.
the natural evolutionary mechanism is limited to combinations of amino acids, and ha is limited only by the imagination of its users.
Probably the energetic autonomy is rejected by Nature because of the lack of interaction and destruction of the motive for evolution. If beings do not devour each other for the sake of daily existence - they do not interact and therefore do not evolve. Consequently, autonomy destroys the foundations of Evolution, and limits life to a single cycle. A dead end...
Probably energetic autonomy is rejected by Nature due to lack of interaction and destruction of the base for development. If beings do not devour each other for the sake of daily existence, they do not interact and therefore do not evolve. Therefore autonomy destroys the basis of Evolution, and limits life to one cycle. A dead end...
Why evolve?
It is good enough for simple extremophiles, they do not need oxygen, they consume hydrogen sulphide - the main thing is to continue living.
... Humans are a virtually invulnerable species and could easily be brought to the brink of extinction by the destruction of their "food base".
I agree.
Regarding genetic selection of the strongest.
The problem is that you can't just "add a parameter" to the system. It doesn't work that way. The parameter is a derivative of the whole system. It is based on many functions and properties. It can't just be added...
The problem is that you can't just 'add a parameter' to the system. It doesn't work that way. The parameter is a derivative of the whole system. It is based on many functions and properties. It cannot simply be added...