Emergent Information Processing: Observations, Experiments, and Future Directions
Bohdan Hejna
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthis paper provides a good review of the current knowledge about capabilities to reproduce, means of defining the input data & local processes, means of solution, and future lines of attack to find "Artificial, massively-parallel, self-organized, emergent, error-resilient computational environments.”
However, it lacks the logic framework of this research, which give the basic theory and relationship of different unit.
More references are required to show the status of the related research, and have a better overview of information processing in this field.
More examples are required to prove your statement.
Author Response
**********************
Response to All Reviewers:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
General improvements against the first submitted version of the paper follows:
---
---
Algorithms of r-GoL and GoL-N24 were added. This should substantially increase the readability of the review, as it defines the core processing flows within each specific CA.
---
Section 1.6
Algorithm 1: The algorithm, describing GoL-N24, is performed simul-
taneously in all cells during one time-step within the function Update-
Cell which is called from the main() function. This algorithm was used
to generate all simulations except r-GoL ones.
---
Section 1.7
Algorithm 2: The algorithm, describing r-GoL, is performed simulta-
neously in all cells during one time-step. The main loop is omitted,
it is same as in the Algorithm 1. The algorithm used to generate the
simulation in Figure 6. The simulation presented in Figure 5 has the
same algorithm except the random flipping of cells.
---
Introduction is completely rewritten. Subsections 1.1 to 1.5 are new. Subsections 1.7 and 1.8 are new. Section 1.6 stayed same except grammar improvements.
---
Outline of the review in the subsection 1.8
---
Tens of spelling spelling errors and hundreds of grammatical errors (mostly prepositions and articles) were corrected throughout all paper. This should increase the readability of the paper.
---
**********************
Response to the Reviewer 3:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
Specific responses according to the comments of the reviewer:
---
---
Reviewer: “Is knowing 15 of the author’s publications in the bibliography necessary …?”
This is resolved by writing a suplement that contains all animation, ‘gol.*’ initial files, and links to other resources. Citations are shifted there. The number of citation in the paper is 114 due to substantial increase of links to the related publications used in the introduction.
---
Reviewer: “I advice adding r-GoL definition in introduction.”
Added in the section 1.7 along with the outline of used algorithm. It can be compared with the algorithm of GoL-N24 provided in the section 1.6 for easy comparison.
---
Reviewer: “Is GoL considered only with one population/colony?”
Each time GoL is run, the novel random initial configuration is generated. Not the identical one.
---
Reviewer: “Thesis: ….” is not consistent with the conculsion “The main purpose …” … “Does the review of the current knowledge answer the thesis?”
This is covered in the outline of the review in the Subsection 1.8 along with the Table 6. Thank you for noticing this this deficiency. It was realy scattered accros the whole paper.
---
Reviewer: “Formulation a general thesis and reducing it to solutions focussed only on CA seem to be a major oversimplication. …”
This is resolved in the new extended review of all avaiable literature that I am able to cover myslef. It spans almos all scientific fields. It is explained in the rext that Cas are used to keep the review consistent and easy toi read. When other formalisms will be used, the whole review will be highly fuzzy to many. Addtionally, other methodologies which can benefit from the Thesis are reviewd here.
---
Reviewer: “Can autor cite more related works …”
Viz above. As well done in the extended review in the updated introduction.
---
**********************
Response to the Reviewer 2:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
Reviewer: “Division of the paper into two parts …”
I do not agree with it, as the paper is created from a multilayered network of dependencies, which enables each reader to quickly find the understanding through his specific scientific training. By splitting it into two parts, this network will be corrupted!
---
Reviewer: “Also the greter care should be devoted to the description leading to the resulting AND, OR, and NOT. …”
“”
We are speaking about table 5 here, right. You didn’t mention it in your review comments, it is a bit cryptic way of communication.
Table 5 is putting the classic way of communication with emergent one side-by-side. There is not said anywhere that atoms, molecules, cells, etc. are logic operators. It working differently. Computations are arising through mutual communications among neighboring constituting elements. It can go throuh hydrogen bonds, electron sharing, etc. There is no physical logic operators!
Basically, the all sections of the paper dealing with computations are describing this concept!
---
Reviewer: “The claim on 234, ‘Physical laws themselves are emergent and not fixed’ ...”
The description was extended and deepened.
---
Reviewer: “The claim on 320, “some logical statements are impossible …”
in Subsection 6.3, this statement is more elaborated using peano arithmetics.
---
Reviewer: “When the MPC is the same as the evaluation the function of many variables, then, following the principle of the SMN-theorem …”
This staement is based on the incomplete understanding of MPC. When we take CAs only, implementation of differential schemes resulting from ODEs and PDEs is a tiny fraction of all possible local rules! Some MPC local rules are complete others are incomplete. GoL local rule with the given neighbourhood is complete, other rules or neighbourhood are not.
---
Reviewer: “The clain on 341, “Is the nature following no-law describable interactions” …”
As I believe , it is a big open question. No law is valid; an example is the pilot wave concept used in quantum mechanics. No chance to find a law describing the double-slit experiemnrt, yet we know that it is happening. The same logic is hidden behind my point about no-law-describable phenomena.
---
Reviewer: “Too long sentences.”
I did run a thorow grammar check on newly avaiable sgerammar checker., To long sentences were shortened. Many smaller gramatical mistakes in comma use, articles and preposition and verbs were corrected using the grammar checker. Thank you for pointing this up. Hopefully, it made the paper more readable.
---
Reviewer: “Devision into two parts.”
Dissagrement on this point, se above.
---
Reviewer: “
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
**********************
Response to the Reviewer 3:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
General improvements against the first submitted version of the paper follows:
---
---
Algorithms of r-GoL and GoL-N24 were added. This should substantially increase the readability of the review, as it defines the core processing flows within each specific CA.
---
Section 1.6
Algorithm 1: The algorithm, describing GoL-N24, is performed simul-
taneously in all cells during one time-step within the function Update-
Cell which is called from the main() function. This algorithm was used
to generate all simulations except r-GoL ones.
---
Section 1.7
Algorithm 2: The algorithm, describing r-GoL, is performed simulta-
neously in all cells during one time-step. The main loop is omitted,
it is same as in the Algorithm 1. The algorithm used to generate the
simulation in Figure 6. The simulation presented in Figure 5 has the
same algorithm except the random flipping of cells.
---
Introduction is completely rewritten. Subsections 1.1 to 1.5 are new. Subsections 1.7 and 1.8 are new. Section 1.6 stayed same except grammar improvements.
---
Outline of the review in the subsection 1.8
---
Specific responses according to the comments of the reviewer:
---
---
Reviewer: “Is knowing 15 of the author’s publications in the bibliography necessary …?”
This is resolved by writing a suplement that contains all animation, ‘gol.*’ initial files, and links to other resources. Citations are shifted there. The number of citation in the paper is 114 due to substantial increase of links to the related publications used in the introduction.
---
Reviewer: “I advice adding r-GoL definition in introduction.”
Added in the section 1.7 along with the outline of used algorithm. It can be compared with the algorithm of GoL-N24 provided in the section 1.6 for easy comparison.
---
Reviewer: “Is GoL considered only with one population/colony?”
Each time GoL is run, the novel random initial configuration is generated. Not the identical one.
---
Reviewer: “Thesis: ….” is not consistent with the conculsion “The main purpose …” … “Does the review of the current knowledge answer the thesis?”
This is covered in the outline of the review in the Subsection 1.8 along with the Table 6. Thank you for noticing this this deficiency. It was realy scattered accros the whole paper.
---
Reviewer: “Formulation a general thesis and reducing it to solutions focussed only on CA seem to be a major oversimplication. …”
This is resolved in the new extended review of all avaiable literature that I am able to cover myslef. It spans almos all scientific fields. It is explained in the rext that Cas are used to keep the review consistent and easy toi read. When other formalisms will be used, the whole review will be highly fuzzy to many. Addtionally, other methodologies which can benefit from the Thesis are reviewd here.
---
Reviewer: “Can autor cite more related works …”
Viz above. As well done in the extended review in the updated introduction.
---
**********************
Response to the Reviewer 2:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
Reviewer: “Division of the paper into two parts …”
I do not agree with it, as the paper is created from a multilayered network of dependencies, which enables each reader to quickly find the understanding through his specific scientific training. By splitting it into two parts, this network will be corrupted!
---
Reviewer: “Also the greter care should be devoted to the description leading to the resulting AND, OR, and NOT. …”
“”
We are speaking about table 5 here, right. You didn’t mention it in your review comments, it is a bit cryptic way of communication.
Table 5 is putting the classic way of communication with emergent one side-by-side. There is not said anywhere that atoms, molecules, cells, etc. are logic operators. It working differently. Computations are arising through mutual communications among neighboring constituting elements. It can go throuh hydrogen bonds, electron sharing, etc. There is no physical logic operators!
Basically, the all sections of the paper dealing with computations are describing this concept!
---
Reviewer: “The claim on 234, ‘Physical laws themselves are emergent and not fixed’ ...”
The description was extended and deepened.
---
Reviewer: “The claim on 320, “some logical statements are impossible …”
in Subsection 6.3, this statement is more elaborated using peano arithmetics.
---
Reviewer: “When the MPC is the same as the evaluation the function of many variables, then, following the principle of the SMN-theorem …”
This staement is based on the incomplete understanding of MPC. When we take CAs only, implementation of differential schemes resulting from ODEs and PDEs is a tiny fraction of all possible local rules! Some MPC local rules are complete others are incomplete. GoL local rule with the given neighbourhood is complete, other rules or neighbourhood are not.
---
Reviewer: “The clain on 341, “Is the nature following no-law describable interactions” …”
As I believe , it is a big open question. No law is valid; an example is the pilot wave concept used in quantum mechanics. No chance to find a law describing the double-slit experiemnrt, yet we know that it is happening. The same logic is hidden behind my point about no-law-describable phenomena.
---
Reviewer: “Too long sentences.”
I did run a thorow grammar check on newly avaiable sgerammar checker., To long sentences were shortened. Many smaller gramatical mistakes in comma use, articles and preposition and verbs were corrected using the grammar checker. Thank you for pointing this up. Hopefully, it made the paper more readable.
---
Reviewer: “Devision into two parts.”
Dissagrement on this point, se above.
---
Reviewer: “
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would recommend to divide the paper inti two papers.
The first devoted to GoL and the terminology used (ship breathing ship etc).
Also the greater care should be devoted to the description of processes leading to the resulting AND, OR, NOT. It is not quite clear whether the resulting AND e.g. is the result of operations (how, what), or whether it is the operator. By the way AND is operator, atom is not, interaction among atoms could be AND. This part of the shows very low educational level, even informative.
The claim on 234, "physical laws themselves are emergent and not fixed" s ems to me be very surficial, although I understand that it is valid fo macroscopic physics, But there are deeper laws.
The claim on 310, "some logical statemens are impossible to evaluate witin the axiomaric system" is trhe another surficeness, although right per se. It is important to emphasize what logics and system is in course. The idea is valid for the claim about the whole of the system considered. It is not "some" statement.
When the MPC is the same as the evaluating the function of many variables, then, following the principle of the SMN-theorem we see that even the MPC system should be incomplete (sic!, my own consideration gifted to the author, not enevitably right but as topic for considering).
The claim on 341, "Is the nature allowing no-law describable interaction" is, I believe, nonsensical.
May be I am not so much qualified and for this fact is my evaluation rather severe. My appologize.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageToo long sentences from many branchesces wit many terms. It recommandable to devide this paper int two ones. GOL part, and paert with biological and the oyher consideratios
Author Response
**********************
Response to All Reviewers:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
General improvements against the first submitted version of the paper follows:
---
---
Algorithms of r-GoL and GoL-N24 were added. This should substantially increase the readability of the review, as it defines the core processing flows within each specific CA.
---
Section 1.6
Algorithm 1: The algorithm, describing GoL-N24, is performed simul-
taneously in all cells during one time-step within the function Update-
Cell which is called from the main() function. This algorithm was used
to generate all simulations except r-GoL ones.
---
Section 1.7
Algorithm 2: The algorithm, describing r-GoL, is performed simulta-
neously in all cells during one time-step. The main loop is omitted,
it is same as in the Algorithm 1. The algorithm used to generate the
simulation in Figure 6. The simulation presented in Figure 5 has the
same algorithm except the random flipping of cells.
---
Introduction is completely rewritten. Subsections 1.1 to 1.5 are new. Subsections 1.7 and 1.8 are new. Section 1.6 stayed same except grammar improvements.
---
Outline of the review in the subsection 1.8
---
Tens of spelling spelling errors and hundreds of grammatical errors (mostly prepositions and articles) were corrected throughout all paper. This should increase the readability of the paper.
---
**********************
Response to the Reviewer 2:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
Reviewer: “Division of the paper into two parts …”
I do not agree with it, as the paper is created from a multilayered network of dependencies, which enables each reader to quickly find the understanding through his specific scientific training. By splitting it into two parts, this network will be corrupted!
---
Reviewer: “Also the greter care should be devoted to the description leading to the resulting AND, OR, and NOT. …”
“”
We are speaking about table 5 here, right. You didn’t mention it in your review comments, it is a bit cryptic way of communication.
Table 5 is putting the classic way of communication with emergent one side-by-side. There is not said anywhere that atoms, molecules, cells, etc. are logic operators. It working differently. Computations are arising through mutual communications among neighboring constituting elements. It can go throuh hydrogen bonds, electron sharing, etc. There is no physical logic operators!
Basically, the all sections of the paper dealing with computations are describing this concept!
---
Reviewer: “The claim on 234, ‘Physical laws themselves are emergent and not fixed’ ...”
The description was extended and deepened.
---
Reviewer: “The claim on 320, “some logical statements are impossible …”
in Subsection 6.3, this statement is more elaborated using peano arithmetics.
---
Reviewer: “When the MPC is the same as the evaluation the function of many variables, then, following the principle of the SMN-theorem …”
This staement is based on the incomplete understanding of MPC. When we take CAs only, implementation of differential schemes resulting from ODEs and PDEs is a tiny fraction of all possible local rules! Some MPC local rules are complete others are incomplete. GoL local rule with the given neighbourhood is complete, other rules or neighbourhood are not.
---
Reviewer: “The clain on 341, “Is the nature following no-law describable interactions” …”
As I believe , it is a big open question. No law is valid; an example is the pilot wave concept used in quantum mechanics. No chance to find a law describing the double-slit experiemnrt, yet we know that it is happening. The same logic is hidden behind my point about no-law-describable phenomena.
---
Reviewer: “Too long sentences.”
I did run a thorow grammar check on newly avaiable sgerammar checker., To long sentences were shortened. Many smaller gramatical mistakes in comma use, articles and preposition and verbs were corrected using the grammar checker. Thank you for pointing this up. Hopefully, it made the paper more readable.
---
Reviewer: “Devision into two parts.”
Dissagrement on this point, se above.
---
Reviewer: “
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
**********************
Response to the Reviewer 2:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
Reviewer: “Division of the paper into two parts …”
I do not agree with it, as the paper is created from a multilayered network of dependencies, which enables each reader to quickly find the understanding through his specific scientific training. By splitting it into two parts, this network will be corrupted!
---
Reviewer: “Also the greter care should be devoted to the description leading to the resulting AND, OR, and NOT. …”
“”
We are speaking about table 5 here, right. You didn’t mention it in your review comments, it is a bit cryptic way of communication.
Table 5 is putting the classic way of communication with emergent one side-by-side. There is not said anywhere that atoms, molecules, cells, etc. are logic operators. It working differently. Computations are arising through mutual communications among neighboring constituting elements. It can go throuh hydrogen bonds, electron sharing, etc. There is no physical logic operators!
Basically, the all sections of the paper dealing with computations are describing this concept!
---
Reviewer: “The claim on 234, ‘Physical laws themselves are emergent and not fixed’ ...”
The description was extended and deepened.
---
Reviewer: “The claim on 320, “some logical statements are impossible …”
in Subsection 6.3, this statement is more elaborated using peano arithmetics.
---
Reviewer: “When the MPC is the same as the evaluation the function of many variables, then, following the principle of the SMN-theorem …”
This staement is based on the incomplete understanding of MPC. When we take CAs only, implementation of differential schemes resulting from ODEs and PDEs is a tiny fraction of all possible local rules! Some MPC local rules are complete others are incomplete. GoL local rule with the given neighbourhood is complete, other rules or neighbourhood are not.
---
Reviewer: “The clain on 341, “Is the nature following no-law describable interactions” …”
As I believe , it is a big open question. No law is valid; an example is the pilot wave concept used in quantum mechanics. No chance to find a law describing the double-slit experiemnrt, yet we know that it is happening. The same logic is hidden behind my point about no-law-describable phenomena.
---
Reviewer: “Too long sentences.”
I did run a thorow grammar check on newly avaiable sgerammar checker., To long sentences were shortened. Many smaller gramatical mistakes in comma use, articles and preposition and verbs were corrected using the grammar checker. Thank you for pointing this up. Hopefully, it made the paper more readable.
---
Reviewer: “Devision into two parts.”
Dissagrement on this point, se above.
---
Reviewer: “
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe primary aim of this publication is to provide a comprehensive review of our current understanding concerning "Artificial, massively-parallel, self-organized, emergent, error-resilient computational environments." This encompasses capabilities of reproduction, frameworks for input data definition, local processes, solution methodologies, and prospective avenues for further exploration.
The discussion spotlights two principal research trajectories: firstly, the existence of error-tolerant emergent systems, and secondly, the robustness of these emergents when faced with variations in their surrounding environment. Additionally, the author delves into other critical aspects, such as evidence confirming the presence of second-order emergents. The studies reviewed not only showcase the feasibility of these concepts but also, in some cases, the methods to achieve them. Notably, the discussion extends and refines the foundational proofs of Turing equivalence found in the 'Game of Life' cellular automaton.
I accept the quality of the article and the essence of the topic covered, however I have some comments on the form of content presentation.
Is knowing the 15 of the author's publications in the bibliography necessary to understand the article? It seems to me that 1/3 of self-citation is too much for this quality of the journal. Why some positions are available only through Researchgate? I think that the author should improve the bibliography.
I advise adding r-Gol definition in Introduction.
Is GoL considered only with one kind of population/colony?
The author constructs the Thesis
Thesis: “Can we design artificial, massively-parallel, self-organized, emergent, error-resilient computational environments?”
and the paper is concluded by a sentence
The main purpose of this publication is to review the current knowledge about, capabilities to reproduce, means of defining the input data & local processes, means of solution, and future lines of attack to find "Artificial, massively-parallel, self-organized, emergent, error-resilient computational environments.”
Does the review of the current knowledge answer the Thesis? It seems to be misleading to the reader.
Formulating a general thesis and reducing it to solutions focused only on cellular automata seems to be a major oversimplification. It may be worth explaining why such a solution is most interesting or valuable. For example, many bioinformatics algorithms are solved by dynamic programming. If this solution is excluded from the author's discussion, please depict it.
Can the author cite more related works that use emergence in designing systems for the game of life as well as other problems?
Author Response
**********************
Response to All Reviewers:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
General improvements against the first submitted version of the paper follows:
---
---
Algorithms of r-GoL and GoL-N24 were added. This should substantially increase the readability of the review, as it defines the core processing flows within each specific CA.
---
Section 1.6
Algorithm 1: The algorithm, describing GoL-N24, is performed simul-
taneously in all cells during one time-step within the function Update-
Cell which is called from the main() function. This algorithm was used
to generate all simulations except r-GoL ones.
---
Section 1.7
Algorithm 2: The algorithm, describing r-GoL, is performed simulta-
neously in all cells during one time-step. The main loop is omitted,
it is same as in the Algorithm 1. The algorithm used to generate the
simulation in Figure 6. The simulation presented in Figure 5 has the
same algorithm except the random flipping of cells.
---
Introduction is completely rewritten. Subsections 1.1 to 1.5 are new. Subsections 1.7 and 1.8 are new. Section 1.6 stayed same except grammar improvements.
---
Outline of the review in the subsection 1.8
---
Tens of spelling spelling errors and hundreds of grammatical errors (mostly prepositions and articles) were corrected throughout all paper. This should increase the readability of the paper.
---
**********************
Response to the Reviewer 3:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
Specific responses according to the comments of the reviewer:
---
---
Reviewer: “Is knowing 15 of the author’s publications in the bibliography necessary …?”
This is resolved by writing a suplement that contains all animation, ‘gol.*’ initial files, and links to other resources. Citations are shifted there. The number of citation in the paper is 114 due to substantial increase of links to the related publications used in the introduction.
---
Reviewer: “I advice adding r-GoL definition in introduction.”
Added in the section 1.7 along with the outline of used algorithm. It can be compared with the algorithm of GoL-N24 provided in the section 1.6 for easy comparison.
---
Reviewer: “Is GoL considered only with one population/colony?”
Each time GoL is run, the novel random initial configuration is generated. Not the identical one.
---
Reviewer: “Thesis: ….” is not consistent with the conculsion “The main purpose …” … “Does the review of the current knowledge answer the thesis?”
This is covered in the outline of the review in the Subsection 1.8 along with the Table 6. Thank you for noticing this this deficiency. It was realy scattered accros the whole paper.
---
Reviewer: “Formulation a general thesis and reducing it to solutions focussed only on CA seem to be a major oversimplication. …”
This is resolved in the new extended review of all avaiable literature that I am able to cover myslef. It spans almos all scientific fields. It is explained in the rext that Cas are used to keep the review consistent and easy toi read. When other formalisms will be used, the whole review will be highly fuzzy to many. Addtionally, other methodologies which can benefit from the Thesis are reviewd here.
---
Reviewer: “Can autor cite more related works …”
Viz above. As well done in the extended review in the updated introduction.
---
---
---
---
**********************
Response to the Reviewer 3:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
General improvements against the first submitted version of the paper follows:
---
---
Algorithms of r-GoL and GoL-N24 were added. This should substantially increase the readability of the review, as it defines the core processing flows within each specific CA.
---
Section 1.6
Algorithm 1: The algorithm, describing GoL-N24, is performed simul-
taneously in all cells during one time-step within the function Update-
Cell which is called from the main() function. This algorithm was used
to generate all simulations except r-GoL ones.
---
Section 1.7
Algorithm 2: The algorithm, describing r-GoL, is performed simulta-
neously in all cells during one time-step. The main loop is omitted,
it is same as in the Algorithm 1. The algorithm used to generate the
simulation in Figure 6. The simulation presented in Figure 5 has the
same algorithm except the random flipping of cells.
---
Introduction is completely rewritten. Subsections 1.1 to 1.5 are new. Subsections 1.7 and 1.8 are new. Section 1.6 stayed same except grammar improvements.
---
Outline of the review in the subsection 1.8
---
Specific responses according to the comments of the reviewer:
---
---
Reviewer: “Is knowing 15 of the author’s publications in the bibliography necessary …?”
This is resolved by writing a suplement that contains all animation, ‘gol.*’ initial files, and links to other resources. Citations are shifted there. The number of citation in the paper is 114 due to substantial increase of links to the related publications used in the introduction.
---
Reviewer: “I advice adding r-GoL definition in introduction.”
Added in the section 1.7 along with the outline of used algorithm. It can be compared with the algorithm of GoL-N24 provided in the section 1.6 for easy comparison.
---
Reviewer: “Is GoL considered only with one population/colony?”
Each time GoL is run, the novel random initial configuration is generated. Not the identical one.
---
Reviewer: “Thesis: ….” is not consistent with the conculsion “The main purpose …” … “Does the review of the current knowledge answer the thesis?”
This is covered in the outline of the review in the Subsection 1.8 along with the Table 6. Thank you for noticing this this deficiency. It was realy scattered accros the whole paper.
---
Reviewer: “Formulation a general thesis and reducing it to solutions focussed only on CA seem to be a major oversimplication. …”
This is resolved in the new extended review of all avaiable literature that I am able to cover myslef. It spans almos all scientific fields. It is explained in the rext that Cas are used to keep the review consistent and easy toi read. When other formalisms will be used, the whole review will be highly fuzzy to many. Addtionally, other methodologies which can benefit from the Thesis are reviewd here.
---
Reviewer: “Can autor cite more related works …”
Viz above. As well done in the extended review in the updated introduction.
---
---
---
---
---
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
**********************
Response to All Reviewers:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
General improvements against the first submitted version of the paper follows:
---
---
Algorithms of r-GoL and GoL-N24 were added. This should substantially increase the readability of the review, as it defines the core processing flows within each specific CA.
---
Section 1.6
Algorithm 1: The algorithm, describing GoL-N24, is performed simul-
taneously in all cells during one time-step within the function Update-
Cell which is called from the main() function. This algorithm was used
to generate all simulations except r-GoL ones.
---
Section 1.7
Algorithm 2: The algorithm, describing r-GoL, is performed simulta-
neously in all cells during one time-step. The main loop is omitted,
it is same as in the Algorithm 1. The algorithm used to generate the
simulation in Figure 6. The simulation presented in Figure 5 has the
same algorithm except the random flipping of cells.
---
Introduction is completely rewritten. Subsections 1.1 to 1.5 are new. Subsections 1.7 and 1.8 are new. Section 1.6 stayed same except grammar improvements.
---
Outline of the review in the subsection 1.8
---
Tens of spelling spelling errors and hundreds of grammatical errors (mostly prepositions and articles) were corrected throughout all paper. This should increase the readability of the paper.
---
**********************
Response to the Reviewer 3:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
Specific responses according to the comments of the reviewer:
---
---
Reviewer: “Is knowing 15 of the author’s publications in the bibliography necessary …?”
This is resolved by writing a suplement that contains all animation, ‘gol.*’ initial files, and links to other resources. Citations are shifted there. The number of citation in the paper is 114 due to substantial increase of links to the related publications used in the introduction.
---
Reviewer: “I advice adding r-GoL definition in introduction.”
Added in the section 1.7 along with the outline of used algorithm. It can be compared with the algorithm of GoL-N24 provided in the section 1.6 for easy comparison.
---
Reviewer: “Is GoL considered only with one population/colony?”
Each time GoL is run, the novel random initial configuration is generated. Not the identical one.
---
Reviewer: “Thesis: ….” is not consistent with the conculsion “The main purpose …” … “Does the review of the current knowledge answer the thesis?”
This is covered in the outline of the review in the Subsection 1.8 along with the Table 6. Thank you for noticing this this deficiency. It was realy scattered accros the whole paper.
---
Reviewer: “Formulation a general thesis and reducing it to solutions focussed only on CA seem to be a major oversimplication. …”
This is resolved in the new extended review of all avaiable literature that I am able to cover myslef. It spans almos all scientific fields. It is explained in the rext that Cas are used to keep the review consistent and easy toi read. When other formalisms will be used, the whole review will be highly fuzzy to many. Addtionally, other methodologies which can benefit from the Thesis are reviewd here.
---
Reviewer: “Can autor cite more related works …”
Viz above. As well done in the extended review in the updated introduction.
---
**********************
Response to the Reviewer 2:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
Reviewer: “Division of the paper into two parts …”
I do not agree with it, as the paper is created from a multilayered network of dependencies, which enables each reader to quickly find the understanding through his specific scientific training. By splitting it into two parts, this network will be corrupted!
---
Reviewer: “Also the greter care should be devoted to the description leading to the resulting AND, OR, and NOT. …”
“”
We are speaking about table 5 here, right. You didn’t mention it in your review comments, it is a bit cryptic way of communication.
Table 5 is putting the classic way of communication with emergent one side-by-side. There is not said anywhere that atoms, molecules, cells, etc. are logic operators. It working differently. Computations are arising through mutual communications among neighboring constituting elements. It can go throuh hydrogen bonds, electron sharing, etc. There is no physical logic operators!
Basically, the all sections of the paper dealing with computations are describing this concept!
---
Reviewer: “The claim on 234, ‘Physical laws themselves are emergent and not fixed’ ...”
The description was extended and deepened.
---
Reviewer: “The claim on 320, “some logical statements are impossible …”
in Subsection 6.3, this statement is more elaborated using peano arithmetics.
---
Reviewer: “When the MPC is the same as the evaluation the function of many variables, then, following the principle of the SMN-theorem …”
This staement is based on the incomplete understanding of MPC. When we take CAs only, implementation of differential schemes resulting from ODEs and PDEs is a tiny fraction of all possible local rules! Some MPC local rules are complete others are incomplete. GoL local rule with the given neighbourhood is complete, other rules or neighbourhood are not.
---
Reviewer: “The clain on 341, “Is the nature following no-law describable interactions” …”
As I believe , it is a big open question. No law is valid; an example is the pilot wave concept used in quantum mechanics. No chance to find a law describing the double-slit experiemnrt, yet we know that it is happening. The same logic is hidden behind my point about no-law-describable phenomena.
---
Reviewer: “Too long sentences.”
I did run a thorow grammar check on newly avaiable sgerammar checker., To long sentences were shortened. Many smaller gramatical mistakes in comma use, articles and preposition and verbs were corrected using the grammar checker. Thank you for pointing this up. Hopefully, it made the paper more readable.
---
Reviewer: “Devision into two parts.”
Dissagrement on this point, se above.
---
Reviewer: “
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
**********************
Response to the Reviewer 3:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
General improvements against the first submitted version of the paper follows:
---
---
Algorithms of r-GoL and GoL-N24 were added. This should substantially increase the readability of the review, as it defines the core processing flows within each specific CA.
---
Section 1.6
Algorithm 1: The algorithm, describing GoL-N24, is performed simul-
taneously in all cells during one time-step within the function Update-
Cell which is called from the main() function. This algorithm was used
to generate all simulations except r-GoL ones.
---
Section 1.7
Algorithm 2: The algorithm, describing r-GoL, is performed simulta-
neously in all cells during one time-step. The main loop is omitted,
it is same as in the Algorithm 1. The algorithm used to generate the
simulation in Figure 6. The simulation presented in Figure 5 has the
same algorithm except the random flipping of cells.
---
Introduction is completely rewritten. Subsections 1.1 to 1.5 are new. Subsections 1.7 and 1.8 are new. Section 1.6 stayed same except grammar improvements.
---
Outline of the review in the subsection 1.8
---
Specific responses according to the comments of the reviewer:
---
---
Reviewer: “Is knowing 15 of the author’s publications in the bibliography necessary …?”
This is resolved by writing a suplement that contains all animation, ‘gol.*’ initial files, and links to other resources. Citations are shifted there. The number of citation in the paper is 114 due to substantial increase of links to the related publications used in the introduction.
---
Reviewer: “I advice adding r-GoL definition in introduction.”
Added in the section 1.7 along with the outline of used algorithm. It can be compared with the algorithm of GoL-N24 provided in the section 1.6 for easy comparison.
---
Reviewer: “Is GoL considered only with one population/colony?”
Each time GoL is run, the novel random initial configuration is generated. Not the identical one.
---
Reviewer: “Thesis: ….” is not consistent with the conculsion “The main purpose …” … “Does the review of the current knowledge answer the thesis?”
This is covered in the outline of the review in the Subsection 1.8 along with the Table 6. Thank you for noticing this this deficiency. It was realy scattered accros the whole paper.
---
Reviewer: “Formulation a general thesis and reducing it to solutions focussed only on CA seem to be a major oversimplication. …”
This is resolved in the new extended review of all avaiable literature that I am able to cover myslef. It spans almos all scientific fields. It is explained in the rext that Cas are used to keep the review consistent and easy toi read. When other formalisms will be used, the whole review will be highly fuzzy to many. Addtionally, other methodologies which can benefit from the Thesis are reviewd here.
---
Reviewer: “Can autor cite more related works …”
Viz above. As well done in the extended review in the updated introduction.
---
**********************
Response to the Reviewer 2:
**********************
**********************
EMERGENT INFORMATION PROCESSING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
by Jiri Kroc
---
---
Reviewer: “Division of the paper into two parts …”
I do not agree with it, as the paper is created from a multilayered network of dependencies, which enables each reader to quickly find the understanding through his specific scientific training. By splitting it into two parts, this network will be corrupted!
---
Reviewer: “Also the greter care should be devoted to the description leading to the resulting AND, OR, and NOT. …”
“”
We are speaking about table 5 here, right. You didn’t mention it in your review comments, it is a bit cryptic way of communication.
Table 5 is putting the classic way of communication with emergent one side-by-side. There is not said anywhere that atoms, molecules, cells, etc. are logic operators. It working differently. Computations are arising through mutual communications among neighboring constituting elements. It can go throuh hydrogen bonds, electron sharing, etc. There is no physical logic operators!
Basically, the all sections of the paper dealing with computations are describing this concept!
---
Reviewer: “The claim on 234, ‘Physical laws themselves are emergent and not fixed’ ...”
The description was extended and deepened.
---
Reviewer: “The claim on 320, “some logical statements are impossible …”
in Subsection 6.3, this statement is more elaborated using peano arithmetics.
---
Reviewer: “When the MPC is the same as the evaluation the function of many variables, then, following the principle of the SMN-theorem …”
This staement is based on the incomplete understanding of MPC. When we take CAs only, implementation of differential schemes resulting from ODEs and PDEs is a tiny fraction of all possible local rules! Some MPC local rules are complete others are incomplete. GoL local rule with the given neighbourhood is complete, other rules or neighbourhood are not.
---
Reviewer: “The clain on 341, “Is the nature following no-law describable interactions” …”
As I believe , it is a big open question. No law is valid; an example is the pilot wave concept used in quantum mechanics. No chance to find a law describing the double-slit experiemnrt, yet we know that it is happening. The same logic is hidden behind my point about no-law-describable phenomena.
---
Reviewer: “Too long sentences.”
I did run a thorow grammar check on newly avaiable sgerammar checker., To long sentences were shortened. Many smaller gramatical mistakes in comma use, articles and preposition and verbs were corrected using the grammar checker. Thank you for pointing this up. Hopefully, it made the paper more readable.
---
Reviewer: “Devision into two parts.”
Dissagrement on this point, se above.
---
Reviewer: “
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
