Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
portion of Eigen and Winkler's fundamental work on games [13], as we have
developed ever since the far 1988 examples and applications
(see e.g. [18] and
[4]).
Attention, we do not want here to propose the use of CAs for playing with the
behaviour of “concrete” territorial and spatial systems, as we have experimented those
since the far 1989 with the simulation of “all possible cities”
FICTIES
[9, 10].
In all these cases, we were fundamentally dealing with useful, amusing and
didactically efficacious competition against the “machine”, trying to understand with
the use of CAs how a system could work, how to exalt auto-organisation, realise
equilibri, evolutions, both in general and in specific contexts.
We do not want to propose an application - still somewhat closer to our current
proposal - realised using CAT for the simulation of an interactive situation of conflict
[17]; however, it is a case worth to be described more in detail.
The starting point was a situation of ecological conflict of a predator/prey kind.
Initial scenario was distinguished by an environment where building elements were
water, land, grass, flowers and rabbits.
The game consisted in a search for possible behaviour and reciprocal influences of
each state in proximity to others, and in a definition of transition rules from one state
to another, given the initial conditions. Even if initially few participants had
difficulties in putting the evolution of the scenario in relation with the transition rules,
gradually emerged the importance of this instrument as a pre-diction tool, from the
moment the type of input given to the system could have been controlled.
The groups of players designed transition ruled imagining rabbits particularly cruel
and angry if too numerous, and thus eating each other, or those reproducing dense
flower area being desertified, etc. All rules were collected and publicly exposed. The
scenario had been executed and results were subsequently discussed.
Let us see the mechanisms of the game:
1.
the starting point is a scenario made of land, grass, rabbits and marguerites;
2.
the transition rules are defined by groups of players and then implemented;
3.
groups decide, from time to time, which rules to activate contemporarily;
4.
discussion: the participants' problem is: why on Earth are we doing this?
At that point the participants were encouraged to modify the interpretation, taking into
account the existing scenario but applying it to a plausible situation of a Lebanon city,
and immediately the above mentioned states became Christians, Muslims (Lebanese
or refugees), Druses and UNIFIL (
United Nations Interim Forces In Lebanon
). And
the given initial scenario became a precarious equilibrium between different religious
groups living in homogenous areas of the city.
The first imagined “event” was a bomb explosion, and the question was how could
each group react on it.
The aim was to describe possible behaviour of “actors” under a strong pressure:
Muslims claiming UNFIL's responsibility, Christians accusing Druses, UNFIL
supporting Christians. The possible transition rules describing these behaviours were
seek for, for example:
−
protection against Christians' attacks: a Druse becomes UNFIL if surrounded by 3
Christians;
−
preservation of a precarious equilibrium: an UNFIL stays UNFIL if surrounded by
3 Christians and by 3 Muslims;
