my thought exactly. There's no way processor speed can continue at its current pace to that point. It would have to be nearly infinately fast to simulate all the 10000000000000000000000000000000000's of atoms i can see right now, and even put an electron microscope up to and see formations of. There's just too much to simulate, that is, of course judging that this person is saying that WE will be able to do it eventually. I don't doubt that it's possible that processors are a lot faster beyond the matri
There's no way processor speed can continue at its current pace to that point. It would have to be nearly infinately fast to simulate all the 10000000000000000000000000000000000's of atoms i can see right now
They don't necessarily have to be that fast. Its not like there is a time limit since they are defining time. Even if they took 10000 sec to simulate 1 sec, it would not alter our perception since it is only based on the past. It will still be 1 sec to us.
And why not assume that they did some simplifications? Why should we assume that the universe that we exist in the the one that the simulators run? It could be much different and the laws of physics different as well. It may be able to run simulations of huge amounts of atoms because that may be a trivial amount of processing time to a much more complex universe.
And even if our bodies are "real" and not simulated and we are just wired in like in the Matrix, our minds could possibly be slowed down to allow the simulator to keep up.
For example, we could be in a simulation that was set up to keep space travellers entertained and their minds from decaying too fast whilst they traverse vast distances in near suspended animation - no FTL. And perhaps something went wrong and that was eons and eons ago, so the current bunch of people
Regardless of simplifications, any worthwhile simulation of reality would include the ability to create computers. With computers come simulations of reality. As previously mentioned, any worthwhile simulation of reality would include the ability to create computers. Ad infinitum.
As you look into parallel mirrors, you can never see the infinity because your head is in the way. In other words, there is no accurate simulation of reality.
But the simulation could have a law of physics (again, all the subjects know is that which they have observed) that no computer, no matter the method of construction, could ever be fast enough to run such a simulation.
As you look into parallel mirrors, you can never see the infinity because your head is in the way. In other words, there is no accurate simulation of reality.
Ahh, but you forget planks limiting constant and special relativity. There is no such thing as infinity for two reasons. You can only get as small as allowed by the plank scale - period. And you can not experience further than the speed of light inside your realm of existance (meaning a life-time times the speed of light during that time).
From a programmers point of view I can fully understand why you would quantize the universe with a limit on the smallest spatial dimension (btw, I would do that with time also).
But why would one use a constant speed of light? It does not make simulations easier; all those general relativity equations must be really hard for the math coprocessor.
So why dont they use just a Newtonian Universe with quantum properties?
I think you dance around this point: Why does the world have to be complex? People... most people... will buy into the world they live in if they know of nothing outside it. Especially before the ubiquity of movies and radios, amongst those living in remote locations, living lives assigned more or less by community(farms, villages, etc), few broke the mold, or left to become adventurers and explorers.
If you are born to the simulation, and are told that nothing is outside of it(or that a big hairy monster
No, waht you need is a speed that people in the simulation cannot exceed, and a universe with large empty spaces, which will discourage them from moving out of their one little section of reality.
not having read the article yet, it seems trivial to simulate a universe. Recall from physics how we learn about our universe. We don't start off with atoms, we start off with macro-scopic relationship-equations. Ideal-gass law, simple voltage-current relationships, ideal charge field/force laws, action/reaction, momentum, etc.
These are all macroscopic approximations of what is really going on. They are inaccurate as you delve deeper into the inner-space. But the key is that depending on what you are
You suggest that the simulators may be running in a completely different type of universe. I can't speak to that, because I'm bad with physics. However, if our simulator were bound to a similar sort of physics as our own:
There may be no stable enough platform to make such computations. Ever. If, in order to simulate our planet's homelife, you'd need a planet full of future computers simulating at 1/10,000th time (they might need to simulate much much slower), there may be no intelligence in a universe like
if our simulator were bound to a similar sort of physics as our own:
There may be no stable enough platform to make such computations. Ever. If, in order to simulate our planet's homelife, you'd need a planet full of future computers simulating at 1/10,000th time (they might need to simulate much much slower), there may be no intelligence in a universe like our own that will ever have the capabilities to dedicate that sort of resources for the amount of time that would be required.
that is, of course judging that this person is saying that WE will be able to do it eventually. I don't doubt that it's possible that processors are a lot faster beyond the matrix (since they use optic processors where the speed of light is a trillion times faster there than it is here)
HOWEVER, i do agree with you on the fact that they create how we percieve time. so you just proved it possible. you're right, i was wrong, mod my original post down.
Going with the different laws of physics idea, also don't forget the TIME itself is subject to the laws of physics in our universe as well. Just because we PERCEIVE a 10 year time period to have passed (in our simulation world), that time period could very well have been 1 second in the world of the simulation machine we are running on. The reverse is also true. One second in the simulation world could have taken 10 billion years to compute, it's just what we perceive. If you look at it that way, any dis
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
and this my friends is why (Score:5, Funny)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:5, Insightful)
And why not assume that they did some simplifications? Why should we assume that the universe that we exist in the the one that the simulators run? It could be much different and the laws of physics different as well. It may be able to run simulations of huge amounts of atoms because that may be a trivial amount of processing time to a much more complex universe.
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:3)
And even if our bodies are "real" and not simulated and we are just wired in like in the Matrix, our minds could possibly be slowed down to allow the simulator to keep up.
For example, we could be in a simulation that was set up to keep space travellers entertained and their minds from decaying too fast whilst they traverse vast distances in near suspended animation - no FTL. And perhaps something went wrong and that was eons and eons ago, so the current bunch of people
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:1, Interesting)
As you look into parallel mirrors, you can never see the infinity because your head is in the way. In other words, there is no accurate simulation of reality.
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:2)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:2)
Ahh, but you forget planks limiting constant and special relativity. There is no such thing as infinity for two reasons. You can only get as small as allowed by the plank scale - period. And you can not experience further than the speed of light inside your realm of existance (meaning a life-time times the speed of light during that time).
The re
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:1)
But why would one use a constant speed of light? It does not make simulations easier; all those general relativity equations must be really hard for the math coprocessor.
So why dont they use just a Newtonian Universe with quantum properties?
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:1)
If you are born to the simulation, and are told that nothing is outside of it(or that a big hairy monster
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:1)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:0)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:2)
These are all macroscopic approximations of what is really going on. They are inaccurate as you delve deeper into the inner-space. But the key is that depending on what you are
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:2)
There may be no stable enough platform to make such computations. Ever. If, in order to simulate our planet's homelife, you'd need a planet full of future computers simulating at 1/10,000th time (they might need to simulate much much slower), there may be no intelligence in a universe like
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:1)
In order to simulate a un
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:1)
that is, of course judging that this person is saying that WE will be able to do it eventually. I don't doubt that it's possible that processors are a lot faster beyond the matrix (since they use optic processors where the speed of light is a trillion times faster there than it is here)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:1)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:1)