&#62; Oh man, that's awesome!<p>Thanks :) It was a lot of fun.<p>&#62; Have you considered modeling a more "real-world" computing fabric?<p>That's what this is leading in to, the simplest unit is just a way for me to know that it is doable. If I can't do 'life' then there is no point in going any further with it.<p>One of the HN members here is very far in coming up with a higher level concept but I feel that it needs to be done from the 'gate level' up.<p>&#62; Your cells would have randomly-distributed computation and communication delays, and you could make some sort of visualization of the time waves propagating, and it would just be really cool.<p>I did that for a bit, it is easy enough to show the generations as colours.<p>&#62; I initially didn't think this would be possible to implement in simple physical hardware, but your insight that you only need a two-bit time counter changes things.<p>Yes, that's what made me really happy :) I realized that with a 'full' generation count you could make it work but that would always limit the maximum generation count to the number of bits in the counters. So why not turn it around and see how few bits you can use and handle the 'wrapping' properly. The number is 2, and that's low enough to use a simple 4-to-1 demultiplexer to select the right state line (current or previous generation).<p>&#62; Of course, ultimately, I think what you'd want to look at is amorphous computing.<p>I had not heard the term before, more reading to do!<p>&#62; I think you'll really enjoy amorphous computing.<p>Yes, that sounds like it is exactly the way to go.<p>I will write a fair sized article at the end of this month about where I feel computing is headed, this as a follow up on the new years day posting about what we think the future will bring.<p>I thought the question was an important one and I'm hitting two birds with one stone here, first the interest in cell computing and second the information I'm gathering to answer that question about the future.<p>Fascinating stuff.