Computer Science

Computer science is the study of computers, computation, and information — how data is represented, processed, and communicated, and how we can design systems that perform these tasks efficiently and intelligently. It’s not just about programming — it’s about understanding the principles behind how computers work and how to make them solve problems.

How Simple Rules Can Create Surprising Worlds

~ Manuel Castañón-Puga

Imagine you’re doodling on squared paper during a long bus ride. You start by coloring a few squares randomly. Then you make up a rule: “If a square has two colored neighbors, color it next turn; otherwise leave it blank.” You move to the next row, applying the rule repeatedly. At first, it feels like nothing special. But suddenly, shapes appear—lines, triangles, even messy bursts that seem almost alive. That moment when order emerges from randomness feels magical, yet it follows from just a few simple steps.

According to Stephen Wolfram, whose work explores the hidden patterns behind these kinds of drawings—called cellular automata—this magic isn’t accidental. He explains that even elementary rules, when repeated repeatedly, can create four distinct “personalities” of behavior. Some rules calm everything down until all squares look the same. Others make small, repeating shapes that move or remain stationary. Some explode into chaos, filling the page with unpredictability. And a few very special rules mix order and chaos in a way so rich that they can even perform a kind of computation, similar to how a computer processes information.

To picture this, imagine baking cookies with four different cookie doughs. One dough always flattens into a smooth cookie, no matter what shape you start with—that’s like the rule that makes everything look uniform. Another dough always forms neat little bumps or rings—that’s the rule that creates simple repeating structures. A third dough spreads unpredictably, making patterns that never look the same twice—this is the chaotic dough. And finally, the fourth dough sometimes forms bumps, sometimes remains flat, and sometimes creates complex patterns that resemble miniature machines. Wolfram shows that this last type is potent because its results can’t be predicted without actually going step by step, just like running a program.

What makes this useful for everyday life is realizing how often simple rules create complex outcomes. Imagine a group chat where one person responds to a message, and then others react to that response. A tiny interaction can ripple outward and shape the whole conversation. Or think of routines: hitting “snooze” once might seem harmless, but repeated daily, it shapes your whole morning rhythm. Small rules, repeated over time, add up. Wolfram’s point is that complexity doesn’t always come from complicated instructions—it often comes from elementary ones applied consistently.

It’s also a reminder that not everything can be predicted just by analyzing the rules. Some processes (such as how ideas spread online, how habits form, or how friend groups evolve) can only be understood by observing them unfold. Wolfram’s fourth type of behavior teaches us that even if we know all the rules, we might still need to observe change step by step. That’s not a limitation—it’s an invitation to explore, experiment, and stay curious about the patterns that shape our daily lives.

Reference:
Wolfram, S. (1984). Universality and complexity in cellular automata. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 10(1–2), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(84)90245-8

Privacy Notice & Disclaimer:
This blog provides simplified educational science content, created with the assistance of both humans and AI. It may omit technical details, is provided “as is,” and does not collect personal data beyond basic anonymous analytics. For full details, please see our Privacy Notice and Disclaimer. Read About This Blog & Attribution Note for AI-Generated Content to know more about this blog project.

Tiny Digital Worlds and the Question “What Is Life, Really?”

~ Manuel Castañón-Puga

Imagine you open a simple app on your laptop: just a dark grid of tiny squares, like digital graph paper. You click a few cells to light them up, hit “play,” and suddenly the pattern starts to move. Dots travel across the screen, loops appear, some structures collide and disappear, others split and multiply. There’s no character, no storyline, no fancy graphics—only colored squares following basic rules. Yet, the screen feels strangely alive, like watching bacteria in a petri dish or traffic in a city from a great distance. Langton’s work asks a bold question about scenes like this: could something that looks and behaves “alive” emerge from nothing more than tiny, inanimate pieces obeying simple rules?

To explore that question, Langton uses what are called cellular automata, which can be visualized as video-game worlds composed of pixels that all update simultaneously. Each square on the grid decides what to do—stay dark, light up, change color—by checking only its neighbors. No central authority is dictating the grid’s actions; instead, it relies on local interactions. By changing a single “knob” that controls how easily cells become active, Langton shows that these worlds can freeze into stillness, explode into chaos, or settle into a balanced middle zone. In that middle zone, patterns are both stable and changing: little moving shapes glide around, collide, and leave trails. This is where things start looking uncannily like the way molecules interact in real cells, and it’s the region Langton finds most promising for “artificial life.”

Langton goes a step further and treats the moving patterns themselves as tiny digital machines, which he calls virtual automata or virtual state machines. They can store information in their shape, react to other patterns, and even build or erase structures on the grid. In his examples, some of these patterns play roles similar to biological molecules: they transport “stuff” by copying it elsewhere, regulate activity by keeping each other in check, or act as messengers that trigger changes in different patterns. Collections of them can behave like simple societies: for instance, virtual “ants” follow ultra-simple rules—turn left or right depending on the color of the cell they step on—yet together they carve out trails and web-like structures that look designed, even though no ant has a global plan. Langton also shows a compact loop that carries a tiny digital “recipe” circulating inside it; that recipe is used both to build a new loop and to copy itself, allowing the loop to reproduce again and again across the grid, much like a microscopic colony expanding in all directions.

Why should any of this matter in everyday life if you’re not a biologist or a programmer? Because it’s a concrete reminder that complex, meaningful behavior can grow from straightforward rules repeated many times, with no mastermind in charge. The way trends spread on social media, how traffic jams suddenly appear on a highway, or how habits slowly build your future self all share this vibe: many small actions, interacting locally, creating significant patterns that no one person designed. Langton and colleagues suggest that by studying artificial life in these tiny digital universes, we can better understand not only how real cells and organisms might work, but also how any system made of many simple parts—groups of friends, online communities, even your own daily routine—can tip from boring, to richly creative, to completely chaotic depending on how it’s “tuned.” Playing with these grid worlds, or just thinking in their terms, can train you to notice the small rules shaping your own life and maybe tweak them so your world stays in that sweet, lively middle zone where new, interesting things can emerge.

Reference:
Langton, C. G. (1986). Studying artificial life with cellular automata. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 22(1–3), 120–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(86)90237-X

Privacy Notice & Disclaimer:
This blog provides simplified educational science content, created with the assistance of both humans and AI. It may omit technical details, is provided “as is,” and does not collect personal data beyond basic anonymous analytics. For full details, please see our Privacy Notice and Disclaimer. Read About This Blog & Attribution Note for AI-Generated Content to know more about this blog project.

How Your Brain Runs Its Own Belief Network

~ Manuel Castañón-Puga

Imagine you are at university, sitting in the library, when three things happen almost simultaneously. A friend messages you, “Huge storm coming, buses might stop.” At the same time, you see a dark cloud through the window, and then you read a post online saying, “Public transport strike today!” In a few seconds, you decide whether to pack up and leave or keep studying. You do not write down equations, but you quickly combine these bits of information, ignoring some while trusting others more, and end up with a single decision. This everyday moment is precisely the kind of situation that Pearl describes when he talks about “belief networks” and how we fuse and spread information in our minds.

Pearl describes a belief network as a web of small questions about the world, each one represented as a node, with arrows indicating which ideas directly influence which. A node might be “there is a storm,” another “the bus is late,” another “I see dark clouds,” and so on. Instead of trying to track every possible combination of all these ideas, the network only stores simple, local relationships: how strongly one thing affects another. Pearl explains this using examples like suspects, fingerprints, and lab reports, where each piece of evidence is linked to a possible cause. The key insight is that our mind does not handle one giant, impossible table of chances; it uses many small links between related ideas, which is much closer to how we actually think when we ask, “If this is true, how likely is that?”

Once the network is in place, new information has to move through it, and this is where things become very practical. Pearl shows that each link can carry two kinds of support: one coming from “causes” (what usually leads to this) and one from “effects” (what we have seen that points back to it). When something changes—say you get a new lab report, or in your life, a new message, a news alert, or a friend’s opinion—that update first affects the nearby node and then spreads step by step through the network. Importantly, each node only communicates with its neighbors, so the process is local and easy to manage, yet the final picture remains globally consistent. Pearl even warns that we must avoid counting the same clue twice, like when a rumor appears on several accounts that all secretly copy each other. His method keeps “upward” and “downward” flows of belief apart so they do not get stuck in loops of self-reinforcement.

Another idea from Pearl that fits daily life is the concept of multiple explanations competing. In one story, an alarm can be triggered by either a burglary or an earthquake. Hearing that the alarm went off increases your belief in both causes. Still, once you also hear a reliable earthquake report, the “earthquake” explanation makes the “burglary” explanation less likely, because one clear cause can “explain away” the same event. The same pattern appears when you feel tired before an exam: you might blame stress, lack of sleep, or getting sick. A positive COVID test, for instance, suddenly shifts most of your belief toward one cause and away from the others. Pearl and colleagues also discuss “hidden causes,” extra nodes that we do not directly see but that help explain why several things tend to happen together, such as a shared background reason for your friends’ moods or repeated delays on your train line. Thinking in terms of these networks can help young people make better choices: check where your information really comes from, notice when two pieces of “news” are actually the same source, and remember that one good explanation can reduce the need to invent many others. In short, your mind is already running a belief network; learning to see it that way can make your everyday reasoning clearer, calmer, and more honest.

Reference:
Pearl, J. (1986). Fusion, propagation, and structuring in belief networks. Artificial Intelligence, 29(3), 241–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(86)90072-X

Privacy Notice & Disclaimer:
This blog provides simplified educational science content, created with the assistance of both humans and AI. It may omit technical details, is provided “as is,” and does not collect personal data beyond basic anonymous analytics. For full details, please see our Privacy Notice and Disclaimer. Read About This Blog & Attribution Note for AI-Generated Content to know more about this blog project.

Why Crowds Move Like Magic (and How You Can Use It)

~ Manuel Castañón-Puga

Picture this: you and your friends are leaving a concert, and thousands of people flood the streets. Nobody is shouting directions, yet the crowd curves around barriers, speeds up in open space, and slows near the subway stairs. It feels almost choreographed, but each person is just watching what’s right around them and adjusting a little at a time. That everyday scene is the same idea Craig Reynolds describes for birds in the sky and fish in the sea: complex group motion can emerge from simple rules followed locally, not from a central authority.

According to Reynolds, flocking occurs when individuals balance three urges: avoiding collisions with neighbors, matching their speed and direction, and staying close to the group. In practice, that means you step sideways to avoid bumping someone (separation), you fall into the same walking pace (alignment), and you drift back toward your friends if you’re sliding to the edge (cohesion). Each member only “pays attention” to nearby neighbors and what’s ahead—no one needs a full map of the whole crowd. Add gentle steering around obstacles and a shared pull toward a goal—such as an exit sign or your meeting spot—and the whole group flows smoothly.

Why does this matter to you? Because the same rules help in daily life. When biking through traffic or skateboarding in a busy park, think like a flock: maintain a safe distance, synchronize your speed with the lane, and aim for clear space rather than forcing your way through. In team games, you can move as a unit by mirroring a teammate’s direction and spacing instead of waiting for shouted commands. Even your study group works better with these habits: avoid “collisions” by not talking over others, align by matching the group’s focus, and keep close enough that no one drifts out of the conversation. Small, quick adjustments beat big, late corrections.

There’s also a creative twist. Animators and game designers utilize these simple rules to create realistic crowds, schools of fish, or traffic without scripting every path. You can apply the same mindset to planning events or routes: assume people follow what they see around them, not a master plan. Place obstacles so they gently nudge the flow instead of blocking it. Start a “turn” from one side and let it ripple like a chorus line. And remember the secret of smooth motion: prioritize. In a tight spot, safety comes first (avoid collisions), then match pace, and then regroup. When you practice these three habits, you’ll find that everyday movement—leaving a concert, changing buses, or walking to class—starts to feel less like chaos and more like quiet, shared choreography.

Reference:
Reynolds, C. W. (1987). Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 21(4), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/37402.37406

Privacy Notice & Disclaimer:
This blog provides simplified educational science content, created with the assistance of both humans and AI. It may omit technical details, is provided “as is,” and does not collect personal data beyond basic anonymous analytics. For full details, please see our Privacy Notice and Disclaimer. Read About This Blog & Attribution Note for AI-Generated Content to know more about this blog project.

How Your Computer Can Tell “Me” from “Not Me”

~ Manuel Castañón-Puga

You open your laptop, and a familiar app feels off. It launches slower. A button is gone. Is it just a glitch, or did something actually change? Forrest and colleagues suggest a simple way to think about this: teach the computer what “self” looks like, then watch for anything that isn’t “self.” Their idea borrows from the immune system, turning change detection into a game of “spot the difference.” Instead of chasing every known virus pattern, the system learns your files when they’re clean and flags anything that doesn’t match that clean picture.

Here’s how it works, in everyday terms. Take a file you want to protect and slice it into many small pieces, like cutting a playlist into short clips. Then generate lots of random “detectors,” but immediately throw away any detector that looks too much like your file pieces. That pruning step is called “censoring.” What’s left is a customized set of detectors that match almost anything except your file. Later, the computer regularly compares your file pieces to those detectors; if one suddenly matches, something changed, and you get an alert. The matching rule is flexible: it doesn’t need a perfect match, only a few symbols in a row, which makes it sensitive to real edits. This approach is best suited for items that shouldn’t change often, and it won’t detect pure deletions, which is a known limitation.

The clever twist is probability. Each computer (or app) builds a unique detector set, so even if an attacker slips past one, the same trick is likely to fail elsewhere. System-wide reliability ends up high, even if any single spot is only “pretty good.” You can tune how cautious the system is: more detectors cost more to prepare but provide stronger protection, while day-to-day checking remains inexpensive. Experiments in the paper demonstrate the idea’s ability to catch everything from minor edits to simple file-infecting viruses, and detection improves rapidly when multiple independent copies are involved. Protection is also symmetric: if someone tries to tamper with the detectors themselves, the same checking process detects that change as well.

What does this mean for your daily life? Think of it as a mindset: know your “self,” then watch for drift. When you install software or store important notes, taking a clean snapshot and checking against it later can reveal sneaky changes early. You can also spread the checking across multiple locations—such as a laptop, cloud copy, or external drive—to achieve that system-level boost from diversity. The authors are honest about trade-offs: generating a strong detector set can be computationally intensive, and attackers could try tricks like reusing their own pieces, so varying how you slice things raises the bar. The bottom line is motivating: by learning “me” first and automating the “is this still me?” question, you gain a practical, immune-inspired way to keep your digital content trustworthy without getting bogged down in technical jargon.

Reference:
Forrest, S., Perelson, A. S., Allen, L., & Cherukuri, R. (1994). Self-nonself discrimination in a computer. Proceedings of 1994 IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1109/RISP.1994.296580

Privacy Notice & Disclaimer:
This blog provides simplified educational science content, created with the assistance of both humans and AI. It may omit technical details, is provided “as is,” and does not collect personal data beyond basic anonymous analytics. For full details, please see our Privacy Notice and Disclaimer. Read About This Blog & Attribution Note for AI-Generated Content to know more about this blog project.