If you were to create an actual universe and configure it, let's say it similarly to ours, would that be considered a simulation? It seems to me that this must be answered before going too far down the rabbit hole.
If the answer is yes, we can call a "real" universe a simulation, then:
- Surely there is no hope of deducing that we are in one because there should be no limits to test, no difference between "real" and "not-real".
- Maybe it's simulations all the way down. If a smaller universe can exist within a larger one then it's possible this is the way things are.
- Perhaps the universes are natural rather than created.
- It's possible that inner universes are so much smaller than beings that inhabit the outer universe that they don't actually realize they are there, perhaps just being a small particle in their environment they haven't noticed or discovered.
- We could be such beings.
If no, and we define a simulation as necessarily a system running within another system, a few points come to mind:
- Why simulate? Surely a creating a real universe would be more ideal than a fabricated one. Presumably the beings in charge either cannot or choose not to create a real one.
- If it's not a real universe then it must not be identical to a real universe. It must be close however, so perhaps we can try to estimate what a real one is like by looking at our own and considering the differences errors or optimizations.
- The outer universe must be at least several multiples of the size of the inner one because to store the state of the smallest unit of the inner one it must take multiple units of the outer one.
- If (number of units in inner universe) x (outer universe units per inner unit) is an amount manageable by the beings running the simulation, they must be unimaginably large too, probably made up of more units than our universe.
- If running a simulation requires a bigger universe than the one being simulated, that would seem to rule out the idea of simulations within simulations ad infinitum - there must be a lower limit.
- If you consider (number of units in our universe) / (simulation units per universe unit) you probably get a number large enough to simulate many people and a good chunk of universe. That shouldn't be true if we are at the "bottom" of the scale.
- If we are not at the bottom then our universe does contain a simulation. Surely it must be very large; where is it?
And of course the question remains: Are we at the top?
If the host universe is fundamentally different from ours then that tends to rule out ancestor simulations, which is the main reason bandied about as to why we are in a simulation.
It's true that this work shows shows that we are incapable of simulating this phenomenon in our universe due to its complexity, but more generally it shows that this is true of any universe that works the same as ours.
That would seem to include ancestor simulations, which are the basis for the idea that we may be in a simulation. Presumably simulating a different kind of universe wouldn't be beneficial for this purpose.
"And the reason is this is a whole new feed... things like advertising, the ability to take that data and sell it... we're the only ones who we believe can produce this stuff."
Advertising is the worst part of sports. I hope Intel has nothing to do with VR if their only interest is selling eyeballs. Way to cheapen it.
VR is created by artists to be consumed at internet scale, no gatekeepers required.
Everyone has their opinion of course but all I can tell you is I fucking love my Vive. I've dedicated a room to it and while it's hard to find time in between work and family it's truly an escape like no other. Google Earth is almost enough reason to have it alone. Let alone exploring space, works real and imagined, and of course games. Why watch entertainment when you can be inside it? Everyone should try it.
Ditto all that. I think VR is here to stay and I'm not willing to wait until some arbitrary level of fidelity is achieved. The Vive is an absolute blast today (omg Pavlov) and a stream of new hardware is going to make it even better over time. With sufficient space, rig and cash I don't believe anyone will regret the purchase.
I agree with your sentiment; live and let live I say, really. I don't want to discriminate.
But I still have to disagree about religion. There are countless perfectly legal things people can do that I would consider a mistake. I consider it "not wrong" to consider these things if I need to evaluate someone for any reason.
That religion is legal, common and influential does not change that one bit. That its followers might be brainwashed doesn't either. That's hardly a pass.
We all judge people, there's no high ground here. But we're drawing lines and I'm saying there's what you're born with and there's your actions. Gay and black are the former, religion is the latter, as is every moronic thing you've ever thought someone was an idiot for doing.
I'm not making a call here saying religion is one of those. I'm just saying it's not wrong to judge them both the same way because they are both ultimately decisions.
Regardless even of what action is taken the decision itself can be judged without shame because it's on you. No one else can make it.
They can try. But you're always your own last word.
To suggest otherwise is to say that people are born into or beholden to religion on the same kind physical level as, say, being born gay. No way. Being Christian is not the same as being gay or black. Being Muslim is not the same as being trans.
It's a lifestyle, a choice. As such, fair game. Own it or fix it.
Eventually food, and all goods, will go from source to consumer in a fully automated fashion. The question then becomes one of timelines and intermediary steps. Does the mentioned scenario sound like one that fits into that interim? Sure.
Most of Pascal's increases come from dropping to a much smaller node size which allowed them to add a lot more cores in a smaller thermal envelope. That's why it bugs me that they jacked up the prices and are fusing them off to create artificial tiers - it's mostly more of the same. And they'll continue to be able to do that because there is almost no limit to the number of cores you can throw at the types of problems GPUs are used for.
No. I understand that people - all people - are born into belief systems with varying degrees of imposition. Nevertheless I believe, and laws tend to back me on this, that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own actions. If your religion tells you to kill someone you will be deemed a crimina in my countryl, for example. Why should my judgement differ?
Your examples cite racism which I agree is unacceptable due to colour not being an attribute we choose.
Sure it is, you're discriminating against people of races which are not those of whom you shot. You should be more inclusive by shooting people of all races.
You are born with your colour. Your religion and affiliations you choose. The law might not see a difference there but I do. I'm not promoting discrimination but judging someone based on the choices they make seems like fair game to me.
git has been around a long time; it's not a bug to have used a hash that was widely regarded as reasonable. Anyway what's worse, doing that or using it anyway despite believing it's buggy;)
git does not use SHA-1 for cryptography and even if it did Torvalds is more than qualified enough to speak intelligently about it. Lots of people are, including myself, and what he said is perfectly valid.
I was only talking about how I judge my actions, not those of others, and encouragement is not the same as tacit acceptable. But generally, yes. When considering whether I agree with an action or not its legality is not necessarily a deciding factor. For example most of the issues I have with the US are legal.
I won't enter the US because I feel that doing so would be tacit acceptance of its government's behaviour, mainly regarding war and spying. My country makes many of the same mistakes but continuing to be part of it isn't acceptance, it's what gives me the chance to affect change.
And anyway, "they do it too" is rarely much of a defense.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were to create an actual universe and configure it, let's say it similarly to ours, would that be considered a simulation? It seems to me that this must be answered before going too far down the rabbit hole.
If the answer is yes, we can call a "real" universe a simulation, then:
- Surely there is no hope of deducing that we are in one because there should be no limits to test, no difference between "real" and "not-real".
- Maybe it's simulations all the way down. If a smaller universe can exist within a larger one then it's possible this is the way things are.
- Perhaps the universes are natural rather than created.
- It's possible that inner universes are so much smaller than beings that inhabit the outer universe that they don't actually realize they are there, perhaps just being a small particle in their environment they haven't noticed or discovered.
- We could be such beings.
If no, and we define a simulation as necessarily a system running within another system, a few points come to mind:
- Why simulate? Surely a creating a real universe would be more ideal than a fabricated one. Presumably the beings in charge either cannot or choose not to create a real one.
- If it's not a real universe then it must not be identical to a real universe. It must be close however, so perhaps we can try to estimate what a real one is like by looking at our own and considering the differences errors or optimizations.
- The outer universe must be at least several multiples of the size of the inner one because to store the state of the smallest unit of the inner one it must take multiple units of the outer one.
- If (number of units in inner universe) x (outer universe units per inner unit) is an amount manageable by the beings running the simulation, they must be unimaginably large too, probably made up of more units than our universe.
- If running a simulation requires a bigger universe than the one being simulated, that would seem to rule out the idea of simulations within simulations ad infinitum - there must be a lower limit.
- If you consider (number of units in our universe) / (simulation units per universe unit) you probably get a number large enough to simulate many people and a good chunk of universe. That shouldn't be true if we are at the "bottom" of the scale.
- If we are not at the bottom then our universe does contain a simulation. Surely it must be very large; where is it?
And of course the question remains: Are we at the top?
There is enough time to run such a simulation, but not enough memory.
If the host universe is fundamentally different from ours then that tends to rule out ancestor simulations, which is the main reason bandied about as to why we are in a simulation.
It's true that this work shows shows that we are incapable of simulating this phenomenon in our universe due to its complexity, but more generally it shows that this is true of any universe that works the same as ours.
That would seem to include ancestor simulations, which are the basis for the idea that we may be in a simulation. Presumably simulating a different kind of universe wouldn't be beneficial for this purpose.
Pretty much every comment here is "They'll remove things they shouldn't!" or "They won't remove things they should!"
Maybe we should let them actually do something before deciding if they're doing it wrong or not.
Personally I'd rather err on the side of removing content that incites violence.
Some VR does this for some people. Roomscale VR without artificial locomotion does not.
Try things before commenting on them.
"And the reason is this is a whole new feed... things like advertising, the ability to take that data and sell it... we're the only ones who we believe can produce this stuff."
Advertising is the worst part of sports. I hope Intel has nothing to do with VR if their only interest is selling eyeballs. Way to cheapen it.
VR is created by artists to be consumed at internet scale, no gatekeepers required.
"President Donald Trump has just now announced that the administration would 'get to the bottom' of leaks."
Because we already know where it happens at the top.
America - where every day is April fool's day!
Everyone has their opinion of course but all I can tell you is I fucking love my Vive. I've dedicated a room to it and while it's hard to find time in between work and family it's truly an escape like no other. Google Earth is almost enough reason to have it alone. Let alone exploring space, works real and imagined, and of course games. Why watch entertainment when you can be inside it? Everyone should try it.
Ditto all that. I think VR is here to stay and I'm not willing to wait until some arbitrary level of fidelity is achieved. The Vive is an absolute blast today (omg Pavlov) and a stream of new hardware is going to make it even better over time. With sufficient space, rig and cash I don't believe anyone will regret the purchase.
I agree with your sentiment; live and let live I say, really. I don't want to discriminate.
But I still have to disagree about religion. There are countless perfectly legal things people can do that I would consider a mistake. I consider it "not wrong" to consider these things if I need to evaluate someone for any reason.
That religion is legal, common and influential does not change that one bit. That its followers might be brainwashed doesn't either. That's hardly a pass.
We all judge people, there's no high ground here. But we're drawing lines and I'm saying there's what you're born with and there's your actions. Gay and black are the former, religion is the latter, as is every moronic thing you've ever thought someone was an idiot for doing.
I'm not making a call here saying religion is one of those. I'm just saying it's not wrong to judge them both the same way because they are both ultimately decisions.
Regardless even of what action is taken the decision itself can be judged without shame because it's on you. No one else can make it.
They can try. But you're always your own last word.
To suggest otherwise is to say that people are born into or beholden to religion on the same kind physical level as, say, being born gay. No way. Being Christian is not the same as being gay or black. Being Muslim is not the same as being trans.
It's a lifestyle, a choice. As such, fair game. Own it or fix it.
Judge not lest ye be judged, indeed.
Eventually food, and all goods, will go from source to consumer in a fully automated fashion. The question then becomes one of timelines and intermediary steps. Does the mentioned scenario sound like one that fits into that interim? Sure.
Finally the people of China can be free of tyranny!
Most of Pascal's increases come from dropping to a much smaller node size which allowed them to add a lot more cores in a smaller thermal envelope. That's why it bugs me that they jacked up the prices and are fusing them off to create artificial tiers - it's mostly more of the same. And they'll continue to be able to do that because there is almost no limit to the number of cores you can throw at the types of problems GPUs are used for.
No. I understand that people - all people - are born into belief systems with varying degrees of imposition. Nevertheless I believe, and laws tend to back me on this, that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own actions. If your religion tells you to kill someone you will be deemed a crimina in my countryl, for example. Why should my judgement differ? Your examples cite racism which I agree is unacceptable due to colour not being an attribute we choose.
Sure it is, you're discriminating against people of races which are not those of whom you shot. You should be more inclusive by shooting people of all races.
You are born with your colour. Your religion and affiliations you choose. The law might not see a difference there but I do. I'm not promoting discrimination but judging someone based on the choices they make seems like fair game to me.
git has been around a long time; it's not a bug to have used a hash that was widely regarded as reasonable. Anyway what's worse, doing that or using it anyway despite believing it's buggy ;)
git does not use SHA-1 for cryptography and even if it did Torvalds is more than qualified enough to speak intelligently about it. Lots of people are, including myself, and what he said is perfectly valid.
I was only talking about how I judge my actions, not those of others, and encouragement is not the same as tacit acceptable. But generally, yes. When considering whether I agree with an action or not its legality is not necessarily a deciding factor. For example most of the issues I have with the US are legal.
I won't enter the US because I feel that doing so would be tacit acceptance of its government's behaviour, mainly regarding war and spying. My country makes many of the same mistakes but continuing to be part of it isn't acceptance, it's what gives me the chance to affect change. And anyway, "they do it too" is rarely much of a defense.
Unfortunately? Project Ara was a ridiculous idea.
Better the devil you know, keep your enemies closer etc.
Good point - Americans still kill far more people than terrorists.