Well, the title's pretty much it: if I sat a non-techie/my mum/twelve-year old boy/cocker spaniel in front of you and asked you to explain actors to them, where would you start? I ask because my master's project involves them to a pretty large degree, and every other day someone asks me to tell them what I'm doing. When I'm talking to other people on my course it's not so bad—usually the concept is foreign but understandable—but recently my flatmate, a chemist, asked me to explain it to her, and to say I struggled would be a pretty humongous understatement.
I'm looking for some sort of explanation that conveys the idea, rather than the technical underpinnings. It can be a metaphor, and it doesn't have to be precise—I just want to make them understand what I'm doing with them. Any ideas?
There can be many actors. All actors act "at the same time". The concurrency is a key part of this model.
Actors cannot know what other Actors are thinking. The only way to move information is with a message. (no shared state)
Actors can receive messages, and act on them by:
doing computation with the data in them
sending messages to other actors
creating other actors.
ignoring/discarding the message.
This basically makes actors just like... People. People don't know what each other are thinking, they must send messages to convey information, they have the choice of ignoring incoming messages, considering them, or communicating with other people. Random bad things can happen to people. Lots of people all do things at the same time. To handle more load, add more people.
Regarding your masters project, I suggest finding out about the Erlang Web framework. The programming language Erlang is based on the Actor model, and is used to great effect in scalable systems including phone switches... and the Facebook messaging system.