Similarities (compared to the biological evolution):
- each subject is defined by a highly abstract code (genotype),
- each subject is grown from genotype into phenotype (morphogenesis),
- the probability for each subject to survive depends on its fitness; environment plays a large role in that,
- the variety of the genetic pool of the population is ensured by recombination, providing offspring a new genotype, derived from genotypes of its ancestors,
- further variety is achieved by random mutation of genotype.
Differences (comapred to the biological evolution):
- generation turnover rate can be much higher - instead of hours, days or years, sequences of generations can be developed in miliseconds, evolution can run faster,
- flexibility in the rules of inheritance - for example, in nature a subject typically inherits genetic material from 2 ancestors; these limitations can be easily overcome (e.g. a subject can have 5 ancestors),
- it is not possible to simluate the complexity of natural systems in an artificial enviroment (for example, the human brain has at least 10-100 billion (short scale - 109) neurons; each of them is capable of "parallel processing" and is connected to others through about 1.000-10.000 synapses; these estimates compute to 1013 to 1015 number of synapses...); and we're not talking just about data storing, but (parallel) information processing as well.
So, how to apply that stuff in architecture? The plan is to grow a population of "houses"; each house would be based on its encoded genotype (blueprint), from which a real house would be grown. The houses would mate and produce offspring, which would be assessed; the subject with the greatest fitness (most appropriate house) would survive and pass its genetic material to the next generation. After many generations, best designs should emerge. Huh. I admit it's a long shot, but certainly worth a try :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment