Thanks for the tag! To respond to your comment about looking alive - When we watch ants coordinate or see particles move in simulations, it can be difficult to tell them apart, but there is a crucial distinction. A distinction that is also sorely neglected in conversations about designed simulation/tools vs life, which also points to your comment nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev about how little we understand, or how research can be biased to specific framworks.

Ants and other organic systems contain an anticipatory aspect, there is always a forward 'thinking' aspect within organisms that orients their actions, to which everything else flows for their end goals. That anticipation tells the system what is their north star. A signal to what the end goal is, and a signal to the system to move around or through obstacles. Once that is identified, and the actuators (from tools like a keyboard to muscles and bones) have been aligned and working, all actions cascade through to solve that specific system's problem via 'reactive' processes. Once the compass is oriented correctly, and all the mechanisms are in working order, it all flows through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP3zeHyWakw

In the video, the intentionality comes from humans. Orienting their actuators (code, activating computer logic) to produce this simulation. There is no 'meaning' beyond the immediate interactions and billiards interactions. So no simulation/tool can ever be alive on its own because their telos is derived externally. Tools and simulations can only be 'alive' through continuous calibration with their creators. Regardless, its insane how we can tune systems with the forethought to produce such behaviors.