Basic category theory for computer scientists
Basic category theory for computer scientists
Introduction to artificial life
Introduction to artificial life
John von Neumann and the evolutionary growth of complexity: looking backward, looking forward …
Artificial Life - Special issue on the Artificial Life VII: looking backward, looking forward
Open problems in artificial life
Artificial Life - Special issue on the Artificial Life VII: looking backward, looking forward
Ansatz for dynamical hierarchies
Artificial Life
Collision-based computing
Formal description of autopoiesis for analytic models of life and social systems
ICAL 2003 Proceedings of the eighth international conference on Artificial life
Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata
Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata
A Living System Must Have Noncomputable Models
Artificial Life
The Localization Hypothesis and Machines
Artificial Life
Computational Realizations of Living Systems
Artificial Life
Criteria for conceptual and operational notions of complexity
Artificial Life
Distributed online evolution: an algebraic problem?
CEC'09 Proceedings of the Eleventh conference on Congress on Evolutionary Computation
Category theoretical distinction between autopoiesis and (M,R) systems
ECAL'07 Proceedings of the 9th European conference on Advances in artificial life
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
One of Robert Rosen's main contributions to the scientific community is summarized in his book Life itself. There Rosen presents a theoretical framework to define living systems; given this definition, he goes on to show that living systems are not realizable in computational universes. Despite being well known and often cited, Rosen's central proof has so far not been evaluated by the scientific community. In this article we review the essence of Rosen's ideas leading up to his rejection of the possibility of real artificial life in silico. We also evaluate his arguments and point out that some of Rosen's central notions are ill defined. The conclusion of this article is that Rosen's central proof is wrong.