again, it always start with something designed. here three kinds of randomness according to wolfram

• randomness from environment, this is like considering how random movement of a boat in the ocean. the randomness of boat movement are apparently from the randomness of sea surface movement.
• randomness from initial condition, which is like dice rolling, or driving car in a bumpy road. the bumpiness is already there which cause the randomness of car moving on top of it.
• intrinsic randomness, which acclaimed as the only pure random

the point is that all randomness still start with things, though wolfram told that intrinsic randomness could emerge from very simple rule and very simple initial conditions. still there should be something at start.

so the self-referentiality make herself a point again. something should come from something else. every outcome should have input beforehand.

as much as the idea of co-evolution which i would like to be able to interpret from HIllier's word that i adore so much "configuration of space influence and can be influenced by configuration of people" should there be a confirm start, would it be people first or space first?

the observer role, this is even more difficult to decide. in doing this experiment, shall i put myself as an architect who understand the relation between these two configurations, or shall i blind myself from knowing and just say that perhaps both exists at the same time from the very beginning and then evolve into an identified scheme?

the first scenario is that when we put ourselves as architect, do we see people first or space first isnt it entirely a subjective choice? in the emergent of walking path on a square garden in a busy city block, which comes first i guess is not important since the context is very same to that wolfram explanation of second kind of randomness. it all depend on initial condition, a chaos theory thing. the pedestrian routes were there, fixed in their relation to themselves. the garden also there, fixed relation to that routes. there's nothing that couldn't be anticipated would come out as the Occupational Pattern of walking path in that garden.

i'm very much suspect that p wants the second scenario. i will agree but surely want to be acknowledged as the one who done it, that i designed the very simple rules, very simple initial conditions and so on.