Imagine that at some step in the evolution of a rule one reverses a single relation. What effect will it have? Here is an example for the rule {{x,y},{x,z}}{{x,z},{x,w},{y,w},{z,w}}. The first row is the original evolution; the second is the evolution after reversing the relation:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ee9a1/ee9a118b64eedf851a050024489086b23ec82445" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1b068/1b0684cd17d746bf2775ef8cb4935060c2ecbe80" alt=""
We can illustrate the effect by coloring edges in the first row of graphs that are different in the second one (taking account of graph isomorphism) [41]:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/49eb4/49eb4cc5d7379ba09561f2f86aba3d819d997a3d" alt=""
Visualizing the second and third graphs in 3D makes it more obvious that the changed edges are mostly connected:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/300cd/300cd8c292560633700d03a34a9bc1c0bd6cd98d" alt=""
It takes only a few steps before the effect of the change has spread to essentially all parts of the system. (In this particular case, with the updating order used, about 20% of edges are still unaffected after 5 steps, with the fraction slowly decreasing, even as the number of new edges increases.)
In rules with fairly simple behavior, it is common for changes to remain localized:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/13d7f/13d7f0a1d34bebe4dda204efb7ccd72c76e380f0" alt=""
However, when complex behavior occurs, changes tend to spread. This is analogous to what is seen, for example, in the much simpler case of class 2 versus class 3 cellular automata [31][1:6.3]:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3e81b/3e81b19d850e728612a643b7635cf129a1692905" alt=""
Cellular automata are also known [31] to exhibit the important phenomenon of class 4 behavior—in which there is a discrete set of localized “particle-like” structures through which changes typically propagate:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3cedf/3cedf7b79f3cdbc363164b825eee7fa6737b87f6" alt=""
In cellular automata, there is a fixed lattice on which local rules operate, making it straightforward [1:6.3] to identify the region that can in principle be affected by a change in initial conditions. In the models here, however, everything is dynamic, and so even the question of what parts can in principle be affected by a change in initial conditions is nontrivial.
As we will discuss at length later, however, it is always possible to trace which updating events in a particular evolution depend on which others, and which relations are associated with these. The result will always be a superset of the actual effect of a change in the initial condition:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3c1f7/3c1f7db7b4ca974cbc09889d776c11c137118d70" alt=""
We discussed above the quantity Vr(X) obtained by “statically” looking at the number of nodes in a hypergraph reached by going graph distance r—in effect computing the volume of a ball of radius r in the hypergraph. By looking at the dependence of updating events in t successive steps of evolution, we can define another quantity Ct(X) which in effect measures the volume of a cone of dependencies in the evolution of the system.
Vr(X) is in a sense a quantity that is “applied” to the system from outside; Ct(X) is in a sense intrinsic. But as we will discuss later, Vr(X) is in some sense an approximation to Ct(X)—and particularly when we can reasonably consider the evolution of a model to have reached some kind of “equilibrium”, Vr(X) will provide a useful characterization of the “state” of a model.