If an element of a simulation metabolizes with its simulated

>>8305506
no, because life does not include simulators or interpreters. maybe you found a remarkable local minima for an optimization problem (your fitness function). In order to make it actually be alive, you need a physical environment and some chemical interpreter running your code for a metabolism, making it reproducing itself. (And even then, you might create some edge-case of life, like viruses, which do not have a metabolism themselves, but only reproduce due to being interpreted in a host lifeform's metabolism.)

Oh shit nigga, is that some motherfucking Tierra?

>>8306862
But what if you consider the meme hypothesis that our universe may be a simulation? Is the simulation not its own universe, thus the lifeforms in it really alive to that universe?

>>8307941
even then tierra's arithmetic can't be called life.

Depends on how you define 'life'.
My view on it is that if it behaves in a way analogue to life, then you can call it 'life'.
Take computer and biological virus. Even if they're not life for many they work here.
Both are subject to random mutations (albeit computer virus mutate much more slowly). Both reproduce. Both are composed of information.

As you can see there are some parallelisms. I don't think they should be ignored.
Definitions are arbitrary. What's interesting are emergent behaviors.

>>8307976
yes, if the question is "is it alive" then the definition of life is relevant. and no, a digital simulation in tierra cannot be called life by our given definition. beside that, "a simulation of" is, also by definiton, just "a simulation of": a simulated planet is no planet, a simulation of a society is no society and a simulation of life is no life.

>>8307998
>cannot be called life by our given definition
You mean by your given definition. My definition is different.

>>8308012
no, not mine, because I'm a lazy ass scientist preferring to not create my own definitions but to share the same definitions with my scientological colleagues, so my work and their work base upon comparable axioms.

>>8308025
Ok, but take into account that solving important problems generally involves redefining something into a different frame.

>>8308025
gosh, did I really wrote scientological instead of scientific? I feel stained... need another coffee to even awake... pfff... holy cow...

>>8308027
okay, I'll give my best to consider that, thanks