Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 138 of 138

Thread: Simulations/matrix and the speed of light

  1. Top | #131
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    896
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,782
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    My take is that these images are obviously either doctored or incrementally generated. Too much regularity, not enough flaws due to whatever etc.

    Yes they do look fairly realistic until one stares at them for a moment or two.....
    I think the first one on the left has heaps of flaws and not a lot of regularity. Actually it has a big flaw - her top is very weird - one shoulder is showing....

    When you stare for a moment or two when you already know that they are fake you start to find things that reinforce that belief.

    BTW here is a site where you can try and guess which one is real....
    https://www.whichfaceisreal.com/
    It is flawed because there are some secondary signs that a face is real... ideally the test should only involve how real the face looks... I suspect you will be fooled at least once on that site... especially if you try to choose quickly...

    Here is an attempt by AI to put a second fake face next to the main one: (a second face was a sign that the picture is real)

    Note this GAN based AI has only been public for about 2 years. It works by having a second AI trying to tell whether the face is fake and the first AI tries to fool it. So it becomes more and more realistic...
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. Top | #132
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    4,159
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    10,448
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    ...
    Please disprove the possibility that most of the stars that aren't closely observed are in fact running on a low resolution mode (perhaps billions or trillions of particles each) rather than every single particle running constantly. (e.g. 10^57 atoms in ALL stars the size of our Sun)....
    Please disprove the possibility that you are a figment of my imagination.

    You can't.

    It doesn't matter, if I want to claim that you are, it's on me to provide reasons to believe so. Just like it's on you to provide reasons to believe we're in a simulation. You are failing at that.

  3. Top | #133
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    28,485
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    70,958
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayjay View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Somehow the quantum computer is able to render the field of view based on which eye piece I use. That's pretty darn impressive coding, so impressive it is wickedly absurd. It would require coding to be able to recognize optics, that'd require a near molecule for molecule tracking of materials that are processed.
    Not really. All that the code would have to do is to detect whether you would realize that something is simulated or not. It could be done by just simulating your brains, see if that brain notices anything, and if it does, increase "resolution" until it passes. If that sounds complex, consider this: human brain is pretty small. Even if you have to simulate brain a million times for every event, it's still cheaper than simulating every atom of a star for example.

    The photography example is a bit harder. That would basically highlight that there could be a very long period of time between the perception and any human figuring out what's going on. At that point, the simulation would either had to be rolled back so that all the photographs of the star could be replaced, or the perception of the photographs themselves would have to be altered to be higher resolution than they actually are.
    I don't buy that. Because the simulation needs to know if a lens is super wide or not. And it has to figure this out based on the physical properties of the lens itself.

    But let's drop that and move to the placebo... how is the simulation working there? Running a study where people are "cured" by a placebo?

  4. Top | #134
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    896
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,782
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    ....it's on you to provide reasons to believe we're in a simulation. You are failing at that.
    There would be demand for video games that are indistinguishable from reality. In the future it would probably be possible so therefore there would be those kinds of games. It would be more likely we're in one of those simulations than being in base reality.

  5. Top | #135
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    4,810
    Archived
    6,261
    Total Posts
    11,071
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayjay View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Somehow the quantum computer is able to render the field of view based on which eye piece I use. That's pretty darn impressive coding, so impressive it is wickedly absurd. It would require coding to be able to recognize optics, that'd require a near molecule for molecule tracking of materials that are processed.
    Not really. All that the code would have to do is to detect whether you would realize that something is simulated or not. It could be done by just simulating your brains, see if that brain notices anything, and if it does, increase "resolution" until it passes. If that sounds complex, consider this: human brain is pretty small. Even if you have to simulate brain a million times for every event, it's still cheaper than simulating every atom of a star for example.

    The photography example is a bit harder. That would basically highlight that there could be a very long period of time between the perception and any human figuring out what's going on. At that point, the simulation would either had to be rolled back so that all the photographs of the star could be replaced, or the perception of the photographs themselves would have to be altered to be higher resolution than they actually are.
    I don't buy that. Because the simulation needs to know if a lens is super wide or not. And it has to figure this out based on the physical properties of the lens itself.
    No, it doesn't. If you can figure out which type of lens you're watching through, so can the simulation. And if you can't, does it matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    But let's drop that and move to the placebo... how is the simulation working there? Running a study where people are "cured" by a placebo?
    Are you referring to regular medical trials? If the simulation was that coarse, I doubt there would be even an effort to maintain realism or fool the subjects into thinking they are not in a simulation.

  6. Top | #136
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    896
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,782
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    ....the simulation needs to know if a lens is super wide or not. And it has to figure this out based on the physical properties of the lens itself.
    This can be done in real-time raytracing... materials can have a IOR and the refraction takes into account the geometry:
    https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/my...-tracing-demo/


    BTW raytracing can involve individual photons... it can look "grainy" (like with film, etc) if not enough photons are invovled but this can be improved with "denoising"....

  7. Top | #137
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    4,810
    Archived
    6,261
    Total Posts
    11,071
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    ....the simulation needs to know if a lens is super wide or not. And it has to figure this out based on the physical properties of the lens itself.
    This can be done in real-time raytracing... materials can have a IOR and the refraction takes into account the geometry:
    https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/my...-tracing-demo/


    BTW raytracing can involve individual photons... it can look "grainy" (like with film, etc) if not enough photons are invovled but this can be improved with "denoising"....
    How raytracing works though is that it traces the "light" from the camera backwards to the objects. Applied to the simulation hypothesis, this means that you trace back light that hits a person's eyes backwards through the telescope to the stars that are light years away. And to compound the problem, as was mentioned before, it's not just the eyes you have to worry about, because you can digitize the image, process it, and have a computer describe it to you so you also have to worry about all the other senses. It gets too complicated to handle as a geometric model. You'd need AI to manage the complexity and keep up the illusion at the point where the information is processed: your brain.

  8. Top | #138
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    896
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,782
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayjay View Post
    ....You'd need AI to manage the complexity and keep up the illusion at the point where the information is processed: your brain.
    Yeah I think AI would definitely be involved.... AI based physics and rendering (which can be thousands or millions of times faster)... if it is a low "CPU" simulation AI could partly directly control NPCs rather than only physics controlling the NPCs.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •