speedz99 145 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I thought this was a fairly interesting way to kill some time...it'll at least make you think slightly more than you do when staring at someone on justin.tv who's doing nothing but staring back at you.http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html Link to post Share on other sites
chrozzo 19 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 im WAAAYYYY too sober to get into something like that man Link to post Share on other sites
Ouch-8s 4 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I thought this was a fairly interesting way to kill some time...it'll at least make you think slightly more than you do when staring at someone on justin.tv who's doing nothing but staring back at you.http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html there aren't even any pictures in that - how am i supposed to read it? Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I will read LLY's translation when he gets around to it. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 If we really were in a computer simulation, and then given this hint to our existance, then it would prove that the creator of the universe is Algore.But that doesn't explain Florida, unless it was a misdirection.I got some thinking to do Link to post Share on other sites
magnus72 0 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation. Link to post Share on other sites
runthemover 39 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I will read LLY's translation when he gets around to it.We might not have to wait that long. Assuming that he does this at some point, we can just get ranthemover to translate for us since he'll have read it already=sitsdownwithhandsunderchinwideeyedstaringoffintospacewithheadslightlycocked= Link to post Share on other sites
Napa_Don 688 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 there aren't even any pictures in that - how am i supposed to read it?Probably because you're out of RAM Micheal. Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 We might not have to wait that long. Assuming that he does this at some point, we can just get ranthemover to translate for us since he'll have read it already=sitsdownwithhandsunderchinwideeyedstaringoffintospacewithheadslightlycocked=well hurry up and put this into your memory bank so that future you can remember to come back and do this soon. that would be good.also, who is in your avatar? it looks like the lovechild of jim morrison and matt hughes. Link to post Share on other sites
runthemover 39 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 also, who is in your avatar? it looks like the lovechild of jim morrison and matt hughes. http://www.guba.com/watch/2000811163he also did "The Breakup Song" Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I thought this was a fairly interesting way to kill some time...it'll at least make you think slightly more than you do when staring at someone on justin.tv who's doing nothing but staring back at you.http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html The most valuable thing we should all learn from this article is to never combine the following three things: playing with a word processor, watching The Matrix, and getting stoned. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 well hurry up and put this into your memory bank so that future you can remember to come back and do this soon. that would be good.also, who is in your avatar? it looks like the lovechild of jim morrison and matt hughes.I thought it looked like Brad Pitt dressed up as Val Kilmer playing Jim Morrison, but thats just me. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I will read LLY's translation when he gets around to it. The most valuable thing we should all learn from this article is to never combine the following three things: playing with a word processor, watching The Matrix, and getting stoned.I think hblask did a fine job himself. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Also, I'm still not sure what their model of human simulation would be.But certainly it would be impossible to contain the level of detail we experience throughout our lives. There is no way that any computer could actually simulate our world so convincingly (sorry, the Matrix). The amount of information is mind boggling. Because we have the ability to, at will, look in a microscope or better and see things at the level of molecules and elementary particles, the simulation would have to contain information about all those elementary particles.I guess if it wanted, it could make a lot of shortcuts. It could assume that all of one material looks more or less the same, it could ignore things that are totally out of our reach, etc etc. Still, no computer in our foreseeable future would be able to do this.But it's a cute idea if you're stoned. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 But certainly it would be impossible to contain the level of detail we experience throughout our lives. There is no way that any computer could actually simulate our world so convincingly (sorry, the Matrix). The amount of information is mind boggling.Why? Is there a limitation to the power of computers? Of course there is at the moment, but what makes you think that it's impossible such a thing could be created in the distant future? Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Why? Is there a limitation to the power of computers? Of course there is at the moment, but what makes you think that it's impossible such a thing could be created in the distant future?Well, in order to model something in the world, you need 6 pieces of information at any time (three for position, three for velocity). So, at any time, you need 6N units of information. But to have the detail of our world, these must be very exact units (something like Long Long Doubles, whatever that would be in terms of bits). So, if each piece of information requires about 128 bits (maybe we don't need quite this many, but why not), we need about 128*6*N particles bits of information to describe our world. This number gets very large very fast. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying that it gets absurd. Link to post Share on other sites
Nikki_N 17 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Well, in order to model something in the world, you need 6 pieces of information at any time (three for position, three for velocity). So, at any time, you need 6N units of information. But to have the detail of our world, these must be very exact units (something like Long Long Doubles, whatever that would be in terms of bits). So, if each piece of information requires about 128 bits (maybe we don't need quite this many, but why not), we need about 128*6*N particles bits of information to describe our world. This number gets very large very fast. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying that it gets absurd.You had me at "for velocity"... Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 You had me at "for velocity"...Note to self: decent women actually do exist. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 You had me at "four velocity"...FYP(wow that was a dorky joke I just made) Link to post Share on other sites
SlapStick 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 im WAAAYYYY too sober to get into something like that manIm way too drunk Link to post Share on other sites
Nikki_N 17 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 FYP(wow that was a dorky joke I just made)I like dorks. My valentines day shirt is an illustration of a sugar molecule and a diagram of a human heart. I'm seriously considering wearing it to school on Thursday. I'm only pausing to consider the number of first graders I will gross out or confuse. Link to post Share on other sites
RodReynolds 87 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Caveat: I haven't read the article and I'm tired.Points to ponder: 1) You don't really need a lot of computing power to model the entire universe I don't think. Just a regular computer and a lot of time would do the trick, wouldn't it? So my point is it could be the outside reality takes a thousand years to model 1 second of our reality. I'm probably wrong and I don't feel like explaining it. 2) Our concept of reasonable computing power is of course generated by the simulation, assuming the simulation is true. I have no idea how to get around this problem, that all of our reasoning is a part of the simulation and all our concepts of what is true is just simulated. The outside reality could be much different from what our reality is, with computers the size of Saturn.3) And of course the computer only needs to simulate you and your experiences, as you are the only one who exists anyways. That would take significantly less computing power, especially if the only thing you ever think about are Baconators. SIX SLICES OF BACON, that's hilarious. Link to post Share on other sites
David_Nicoson 1 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 This conversations reminds me of The 13th Floor. It's like The Matrix without the Kung Fu. The characters noodle on the ethics of turning off (or just screwing with) a self-aware computer program. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 1) You don't really need a lot of computing power to model the entire universe I don't think. Just a regular computer and a lot of time would do the trick, wouldn't it? So my point is it could be the outside reality takes a thousand years to model 1 second of our reality. I'm probably wrong and I don't feel like explaining it.Even thought the actual calculations could take arbitrarily long, you would still need a mechanism to store the entire state of a system at a given time. If we're only talking about simulating the world for one being, you could only worry about the particles directly around that person. However, I understood that the point was to simulate the world for the purpose of understanding one's ancestry (though I guess there's no reason to limit it to simulations of this purpose) which would require simulating other people.Finally, the idea is that we're not controlling minds ala the Matrix but rather simulating them all together, meaning that we're nothing more than a bits in a computer system (our entire reality, thoughts, consciousness, etc). Though I guess it's no different than the situation in a real world, really. Link to post Share on other sites
Love4hockey 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I like dorks. My valentines day shirt is an illustration of a sugar molecule and a diagram of a human heart. I'm seriously considering wearing it to school on Thursday. I'm only pausing to consider the number of first graders I will gross out or confuse.You're a first grade teacher? If I ever have kids I'll send them to you so they can learn important things like in the Dear Nikki thread. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now