Slashdot Mirror
The Computational Requirements for the Matrix
goombah99 writes "Nick Bostrom discusses the computational requirements needed to simulate human existence. He offers a proof based on the anthropic principle, that you are almost certainly a computer simulation and not "real". The idea is that given that humans don't go extinct in geologically short time then eventually computer capability will allow complete simulation of the human cortex. Consequently, there must be far more simulations running in future millennia than seconds since you were born. Thus its astronomically more likely you are a simulation than real ... if humans don't go extinct shortly. Recalling the 13th floor, Robin Hanson discusses how one should try to live in a simulation. David Wolpert also weighs in on the physical limits of Turing machines for simulation of the universe. This also may explain why time travel seems impossible: we dont meet visitors from the future since only the present is being simulated."
Why don't you just kill yourself you fat subhuman piece of filth? No one could ever like you and your incredibly predictable 'insights' are a disgrace to any person with a functioning brain.
No wonder you can't get a real job.
You know it's that gay time of day when Michael posts the boring homo stories.
You only need to hear it once, matrix-fag...
We go now live to our correspondant who is covering the disaster at the tape factory. They're in a bit of a sticky situation get it TAPE STICKY?!?!?!?
i'm working to debunk idiots like you.
if you don't have to work on monday, it's because you are either rich enough as you don't have to, you're making an excuse to the fact you have monday off, or you're a slack-assed slive of shit.
if your troubles don't disappear after getting off your ass, i think it's time to recognize your actual problems. 99.9% of problems in people's lives are of their own making and undertaking.
regardless, i know who i am, and why i am where i'm at. the rest of you parasites are just too lazy to take account of your own actions.
Are you MORE than your SPINAL COLUMN?
yes, instead let's opt for the 'oh boohoo it's not my fault' ideal.
this is the last thread i'm going to bother replying to until i wake up sunday, but let me tell you, it's people like you that practically beg to not be blamed for your own sloth that are ruining the human race one by one.
even if i -am- wrong, and there is no free will by some sort of oogie-boogie god that you can't prove by any means, it doesn't matter. nobody respects a looter or a slacker except the same.
go ahead, start telling me how you have no power over your own frailty and blah blah blah, i'm still not going to respect, care or hire you.
nite,
--d.
Are you MORE than your SPINAL COLUMN?
the plak scale is bullshit, as are you
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.
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 philisophical insight only further proves that he is a know nothing idiot. technically the matrix is weak - with contradictions and paradoxes all over the place. philisophically, well, its pure shit. it makes retards think, and thinkers scoff and realize what it is : good entertainment. the only problem with spongman is that the same flaws that apply to the matrix apply to him, but he is bad entertainment.
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) = i . I'd like to see you say that anything using i or e^i*pi=-1 as part of a transformation or a method of deriving something new is somehow flawed and incorrect, even though the result produces things that are corroborated in reality.