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
Well, you see, the funny thing is that you don't need to simulate the atoms at all. All that you need to simulate visually is the smallest object a person can resolve with his unadied eyes. Everything else is simply mapped on top of that.
For touch, you just simulate the smallest texture difference that a human can feel. For sound, all you need to do is simulate the sounds that a human can hear.
All of these would need to have a certain safely margin to account for people whose senses are better than oth
Incorrect. For a more primitive being, perhaps animals at the zoo, such an environment would suffice. However, if you are creating a virtual world where the smallest resolution is only a few microns, you will inevitably run into problems when the intelligent beings of that world attempt to use science to learn. If our world were virtual, and had no detail below 10 microns, or a tenth of one, or a thousandth, scientists with knowledge of what should be, would notice. Experiments could be devised using
Surely the results of such experiments could be faked. For example, it could be simple to build a 'matrix' where the value of PI could be, say, 5, or where Newton was correct and light permeated space the instant it was emitted and mass had not effect on time.
Hell, there are limits to our own understanding of both the extremely small and the extremely large. What if those limits are not that far from the limits of our "simulation"? How would you tell? Build bigger accelerators/telescopes? How big would they need to be?
Our knowledge of "what should be" is based purely on obseravtion. We're always testing the boundaries of our knowledge. But who's to say that when we delve deeper into the depths of the cosmos we won't discover a message:
"game over, insert coins to play again."
or
"Hi, this is God, I'm not in right now, please leave a message."
You're right about Newton but wrong about PI. That's the beauty of math: It's almost entirely self-sufficient. PI can not be 5 in any reasonable simulation. PI is either what PI is to us or the simulation would be so different from our world that you wouldn't recognize a thing in that simulation.
how very euclidean of you. there are plenty of 2D geometries where the circumference of a locus equidistant from a point is not 2PI times that distance.
Are you sure you would recognize anything in a full simulation of such an environment? A change like that would ripple through all sorts of other rules that make our world what it is.
You're right, I'm sure such changes would have drastic effects on the type of universe inside the simulation. Mathematics would remain the same, but Physics would be different (maybe just a hint of green?). But if you were born in such an environment (assuming, of course, you could be), life wouldn't seem so strange subjectively. Although, to an observer living in a "universe" with different rules that environment might seem quite strange. There's no real reason why the universe inside the Matrix looked som
more non-techincal puffery. if you think this guy a a hawking or even an asimov, look somewhere else. this guy is a recycling machine for things that end up in a garbage disposer. this guy know more high level things about more subjects i have come to the conclusion that this guys is : JACK OF ALL TRADES, MASTER OF NONE.
oh, and there is evidence to support that he isnt very good at what he calls his day job to boot.
then again, using references to the matrix movies as some sort of sort for technical of phi
Let's imagine a sphere, and a two-dimensional being who lives on that sphere. If that two-dimensional being were to draw a circle (by taking a point, then marking all points a certain distance from that point) the ratio of radius to circumfrence is not necessarialy 2pi.
If it's a small circle on a large sphere, then the ratio is very near to 2pi, but if it's a large circle on a small sphere, then the ratio goes up. For example, imagine that our 2D friend draws a circle from the "north pole" of his sphere to
Would it not be more correct to say that there are 2D geometries in which pi does not exist, because in them the ratio of circumference to distance is variable? If so, then your criticism of the parent post fails. He was right to attack the naive notion expressed in his parent post that we could easily construct a simulation in which pi is 5.
How very full of shit you are. I suppose gauss's methodology for coming up with the 17 sided regular polygon is as flawed as the methods that prove pi is significant and that using it 'wrong'.
The number appears everywhere, and using it allows one to do all sorts of things predictably.
Then again, for someone who hasnt ever done anything, simple things like pi are subject to debate.
Let's hear some of your wonderful insights on why e^(i*pi) = -1. Or for that matter, lets start sihtting on e, and on sqrt(-1)
The problem with circumference to diameter ratios on sperical surfaces is that the ratio isn't constant. The notion of a constant ratio PI wouldn't exist in a world like that. Can there even be a space in which the ratio is constant but not PI?
The Anonymous Coward's post starts out strong, with the most profound comment in the thread, but weakens as it proceeds. Pi cannot logically be other than what it is. To even speak of pi being equal to, say, 5 is to speak incoherently. Not just incorrectly, but incoherently. A simulation cannot just 'set pi to equal 5'. Such a simulation could not be written, and it could not run. It's not just that things would be "so different".
Even with its flaws, though, it still should be moderated up as Intere
Why not? Pi is only ~3.14159 in flat space. In curved geometry (like on the surface of a sphere) the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumfrence can be not equal to pi in "flat space" or even variable, depending on the size or location of the circle.
I suggest reading Feynman's Six Easy Pieces and Six Not-So-Easy Pieces (or, even better, the complete Lectures on Physics); they can be tough going, but you will come out with a solid understanding of the basics of relativity. Note that they were written
Your argument is bullshit. Pi is the ratio of circumfrence to diameter of a circle, nothing more. It may show up in other places; this is coincidence. I was merely pointing out how the ratio of diameter to circumfrence could be =! ~3.14159.
This is the definition of pi. Pi may be a useful tool in other equations, but that doesn't change its definition.
Complex numbers have connections to many other parts of mathematics. A particularly striking example comes from the work of Euler. In 1748 he discovered the identity
e^(i*x) = cos x + i sin x
This is true for any real number x.
Such a close connection between trigonometric functions, the mathematical constant "e", and the square root of -1 is already quite startling. Surely, such an identity cannot be a mere accident; rather, we must be catching a glimpse of a rich, complicated, and highly abstract mathemat
douglas adams was good at this sort of thing. you just plain suck. its very easy for nimrods who dont do anything for the world of science to debunk other people's endeavors. instead of being a little fucking troll trying to derail and malign scientific efforts, at least be FUNNY when coming up with "the answer is 42" stuff.
any anyone who moderated this insightful, get a fucking life.
Sorry, but PI exists because it is an irrational number. If you set PI=5, it automatically disappear, like de relationship between de diameter and ratio of a circunference... i mean, 2. Anyway, I like PI like this:)
"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)
For touch, you just simulate the smallest texture difference that a human can feel. For sound, all you need to do is simulate the sounds that a human can hear.
All of these would need to have a certain safely margin to account for people whose senses are better than oth
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, there are limits to our own understanding of both the extremely small and the extremely large. What if those limits are not that far from the limits of our "simulation"? How would you tell? Build bigger accelerators/telescopes? How big would they need to be?
Our knowledge of "what should be" is based purely on obseravtion. We're always testing the boundaries of our knowledge. But who's to say that when we delve deeper into the depths of the cosmos we won't discover a message:
orRe:and this my friends is why (Score:0)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:0)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:-1, Troll)
oh, and there is evidence to support that he isnt very good at what he calls his day job to boot.
then again, using references to the matrix movies as some sort of sort for technical of phi
Oh? (Score:1)
Re:Oh? (Score:2)
If it's a small circle on a large sphere, then the ratio is very near to 2pi, but if it's a large circle on a small sphere, then the ratio goes up. For example, imagine that our 2D friend draws a circle from the "north pole" of his sphere to
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 sugarbitch (Score:-1, Troll)
The number appears everywhere, and using it allows one to do all sorts of things predictably.
Then again, for someone who hasnt ever done anything, simple things like pi are subject to debate.
Let's hear some of your wonderful insights on why e^(i*pi) = -1. Or for that matter, lets start sihtting on e, and on sqrt(-1)
Re:and this my friends is why sugarbitch (Score:2)
Differentiate:
Integrate:
Exponentiate:
But you missed my point. PI appears in the period of this equation because the complex plane is isomorphic to R2.
Try, for example drawing a circle on the surface of a sphere. The circumference of the circle will always be less than 2*PI*the distance to at
Re:and this my friends is why sugarbitch (Score:0)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:1)
Even with its flaws, though, it still should be moderated up as Intere
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:2)
I suggest reading Feynman's Six Easy Pieces and Six Not-So-Easy Pieces (or, even better, the complete Lectures on Physics); they can be tough going, but you will come out with a solid understanding of the basics of relativity. Note that they were written
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:1)
My response to the Anonymous Coward's post was tailored to it, so as to point out its logical inadequacy, and did not need to go further.
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:2)
This is the definition of pi. Pi may be a useful tool in other equations, but that doesn't change its definition.
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:0)
e^(i*x) = cos x + i sin x
This is true for any real number x.
Such a close connection between trigonometric functions, the mathematical constant "e", and the square root of -1 is already quite startling. Surely, such an identity cannot be a mere accident; rather, we must be catching a glimpse of a rich, complicated, and highly abstract mathemat
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:-1, Troll)
any anyone who moderated this insightful, get a fucking life.
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:0)
And call this Matrix "Indiana [straightdope.com]"?
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:1)
Anyway, I like PI like this