Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 148 of 148

Thread: Simulations/matrix and the speed of light

  1. Top | #141
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    23,313
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    33,790
    Rep Power
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post

    This:


    Does NOT follow from this:


    You have to explain how the former necessarily follows from the latter. You have to explain how we get from "video games exist" to "we live in a video game". Do you not understand this?
    I'll reply to this part of your post. I don't think 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

    can be accurately summarised as "video games exist". Do you understand why I don't think my quote is equivalent to "video games exist"?

    I am saying video games that are indistinguishable from reality will probably exist in the far future. "Base reality" means a world that isn't in a simulation. I'll reply more tomorrow but maybe you could respond to this post.
    The demans for video games that are indistinguishable from reality is highly questionable; But even if we assume that there is a demand for such games, that doesn't imply their eventual development.

    There's undoubtedly demand for perpetual motion machines; And machines are getting more and more efficient all the time. But that doesn't imply that perpetual motion machines will eventually be available, if only our society becomes sufficiently advanced.

    Simulating a universe to a sufficient accuracy as to be indistinguishable from reality requires more resources than the resulting simulation can model - it will always be easier and cheaper just to make another real universe than to make a machine that can simulate one.

  2. Top | #142
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    905
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,791
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    The demand for video games that are indistinguishable from reality is highly questionable;
    Well people can like how VR can seem pretty real and would desire even more immersion.... There are lots of TV shows and movies where video games are indistinguishable from reality including Vanilla Sky, Rick & Morty's "Roy", etc. Also I personally would also like to play video games that are indistinguishable from reality.

    But even if we assume that there is a demand for such games, that doesn't imply their eventual development.
    It seems one of your main objections is that the universe can't be perfectly emulated... and I address that later in this post...

    .....Simulating a universe to a sufficient accuracy as to be indistinguishable from reality requires more resources than the resulting simulation can model
    By "indistinguishable from reality" I mean that the player can't tell whether the stars are really 10^57 atoms each or whether they are approximated (when not viewed too closely).

    it will always be easier and cheaper just to make another real universe than to make a machine that can simulate one.
    Not if you're using optimisation techniques like "level of detail" and AI....
    e.g.
    https://phys.org/news/2019-06-ai-uni...curateand.html
    BTW simulation games (like the Sims and Flight Simulator 2020) don't have to perfectly emulate situations... they can be approximations. In Flight Simulator 2020 you can see blades of grass then fly out to the edge of the atmosphere. Ideally the transitions for "level of detail" would be seamless without "popping". Note FS2020 also uses AI (machine learning) to generate forests and 3D buildings from satellite imagery.
    In future games I think you would be able to zoom in even further than blades of grass - and ultimately see atoms, etc. (if you were using a good enough microscope [atomic force?] in the game)

  3. Top | #143
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    905
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,791
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    .....Second, at the present time, we don't really understand the nature of reality (Copenhagen interpretation vs. Everett interpretation). Therefore, it is premature to discuss the development of simulations "that are indistinguishable from reality",
    When I say "indistinguishable from reality" I mean that the player can't tell whether the simulation is "real" or not. So if they looked at a star they couldn't tell whether each star has about 10^57 atoms or not. I'm talking about limited observations (and "level of detail" based on that) not an omniscient look that objectively compares the atoms in the simulation to "base reality".

    or talk about a "base reality" with any degree of confidence. At a very minimum, you have to define what a base reality is, compare it to the reality we (appear to) inhabit, and provide a way to test your hypothesis that this apparent reality is a simulation.
    "Base reality" means the world that is outside any simulations.... it is "real". Simulations don't necessarily need to have physics that are anything like the physics in reality but I think in our case it might to some degree because I don't think they would invent quantum physics.

    You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you want to debate this topic and convince others, you have to do more than just endlessly repeat baseless assertions.
    I think the "level of detail" (for rendering, physics, AI) and AI simulation arguments are good points. What is your problem with them?

  4. Top | #144
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    10,680
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    28,586
    Rep Power
    77
    It seems fair to assume that there must be a natural universe and evolution to begin with. Then, perhaps, some species evolves to the point where they are able to generate virtual universes, for whatever purpose.

  5. Top | #145
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    905
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,791
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    The demand for video games that are indistinguishable from reality is highly questionable....
    To respond to this again - games are often praised for being immersive... and the ultimate in immersion is to not be aware that it is just a game.... and it seems realistic and ultimately "real"....

  6. Top | #146
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    13,481
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    31,694
    Rep Power
    60
    I think immersive mostly relates to what is expected in terms of motion relative to one's own norms, eg, realistic. Obviously one knows the eye is fooled by successive frames being more rapid than what the eye produces, the image being more representative of light activity (hue, dark light, etc) than the eye processes, etc. If simulations exceeds sense capacities one finds the experience to be very realistic.

    We've only been aware of the link between the neural production of empathy and learning for about 25-30 years. Yet we have been taking inadvertent emotional advantage of that linkage in movie making since the beginning of flickers. Identity and plot are inherent catchers of interest and anchor points for emotion. Here is where games designers are on the way to making games addictive.

  7. Top | #147
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    10,680
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    28,586
    Rep Power
    77
    A simulated universe implies an original universe. If our universe is deemed to be too complex, too fantastic, to have evolved on its own, the issue is moved down the line to an original universe; how then did the original universe with its universe simulating super civilization come about? Evolved naturally? Simulations, like turtles, all the way down?

  8. Top | #148
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    905
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,791
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    A simulated universe implies an original universe.
    Though it is conceivable that the simulated universe created the original universe with retrocausality. (though I'm not a fan)

    If our universe is deemed to be too complex, too fantastic, to have evolved on its own,
    This is related:
    thread - Chameleons and guided evolution

    A more extreme (hypothetical) example is the babel fish... though it is highly unlikely it would still be possible with chance.

    the issue is moved down the line to an original universe; how then did the original universe with its universe simulating super civilization come about? Evolved naturally?
    Yes. I suspect that intelligence that evolved naturally would have a more bare bones evolutionary tree. I think there is so much variety and beauty and complexity in our world - an intelligent force could have been showing off (while following physics so that it isn't completely obvious)

    Simulations, like turtles, all the way down?
    I think each simulation would contain less information and run slower than the world outside... endless levels would mean that the outside universe is infinitely large while simulating a near-infinite simulation...

Posting Permissions

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