Holy shit, this is exactly what I was telling my friend a few months ago, but he didn't understand. It's essentially the same thing the article was saying, but I was saying it exactly like you were: If you're going to simulate all the fundamental particles in the Universe, you'd need at least that many to calculate it in real-time. And to calculate it faster than real-time (predict the future) you'd need more fundamental particles than the entire system (the universe). I know I just repeated everything you just said, I'm just excited that someone put it the exact same way I was thinking it.
Just to point out: even though I agree with you, and it seems pretty intuitive, the fact is I don't think I can really *prove* it, because there might be computational shortcuts.
The one other flaw in this is the quantum uncertainty effects. Even though I don't understand quantum mechanics, and have not integrated it into my thought process, hence the above conjecture, I still must concede that it is true, because, apparently it's been proven many many times, and is well grounded. Taking that into account, isn't there at a certain level of the universe, things which can't be calculated and are purely left to chance (non-deterministic)? According to quantum mechanics, God *does* play dice with the universe, and that, by definition, cannot be calculated.
I don't think that really matters. The question is purely theoretical, and it is simply a statement of fact, but not necessarily something you can implement. If you could make a completely closed system, completely closed from the rest of the Universe (sounds a lot like another Universe), then what the guy in the article was saying would be true. I don't think it really matters whether you can actually implement it or not.
Yeah, like someone said in a different reply to your post "Intermediate Value Theorem." Essentially what this means is that in a continuous curve, if the value on one part of the curve is 4 and further along it's 7, (and it's a continuous curve: meaning no holes or gaps) then at some point, the curve will pass through any and every value between 4 and 7.
Applying it to this, if the arrow starts at zero (that's where it starts), and ends up at 1, it must pass through 0.5 first. In other words in has to reach halfway before it reaches it's destination. I know I'm just restating your question; there is a mathematical proof that proves this is true, but it seems kind of intuitive to me.
So zeno said, if it must reach halfway first, it will continually reach the half way point over and over again (first 0.5, then 0.75, then 0.875) so you will never reach your target. What zeno didn't realize is that the sum of an infinite series (the time it takes to reach your target) is not always infinity. So since the time it takes to travel each step gets closer and closer to zero, it never passes a certain point, that point being exactly how long it takes you, in reality, to reach your target.
You're making the same fallacy that zeno made: an arrow can never reach it's target because it has to reach the halfway point first. While it's true that an arrow has to reach the halfway point first, the conclusion is flawed because zeno assumed that the sum of an infinite series is always equal to infinity, and that's just simply not true.
I think a basic assumption here is that any such computer would be in a closed system, separate from the Universe we are trying to simulate. Anything else would just result in an endless loop (no?).
The thing is, mathematically you can solve a halting problem. In other words, you can prove mathematically whether any specific program will end or not. If a person (a brain) can solve this, why can't any sufficiently advanced computer do the same?
Arg, I hate these kind of arguments. We both agree on the essential facts, but you're saying I shouldn't have a right to register disgust simply because they are legally allowed to do what they are doing. I, for one, do not require permission to register disgust.
This is such a flawed argument. This forum is designed to spread information and to express your opinion about things. We are simply registering disgust with the way these linux distro's are getting together and distorting and defiling linux and the linux spirit.
Being innovative shouldn't be an excuse to be slimy. Like you said, it's legal, but the law isn't the only way of deciding what is right and wrong. If we simply ignored it by saying it's legal, we'd be giving up our way of settling outside the law: bad PR, bad word of mouth, and generally negative opinions all around.
How do you come here and say "but it's legal" with a straight face? Who said anything about legality? Get with it.
Yes, I linked to everybody's favorite patent abuser; I guess it because I like irony or something like that. I strongly recommend anyone even remotely interested in this stuff to read this book.
You use the word freedom very loosely. "Freedom" is when anyone can come along, gain some power and do whatever they want, dictatorship. True freedom is when the government protects certain rights of it's citizen, right's that have been determined as critical for freedom.
Actually, it's been shown that medical research is always just as effective, if not more effective, when it is funded by public dollars and not corporate sponsors. Therefore, we should fund medical research with public dollars, and end medical patents, since we end up paying 8 times what we would have if we developed it with public research.
Yeah, it's in the United States constitution, Section I, Article VIII, which enumerates the powers of Congress, 8th clause:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Basically, the parent post is pointing out that this clause is highly contingent on the first part of the clause "to promote the progress of science and useful arts...." In other words, this isn't a right like Freedom of Speech, which is granted even without progress for anything or anyone, (and is only limited in certain cases where there is a direct threat to society, and even then, it isn't limited easily).
Intellectual property however, is not such a right and is (should be) only granted for the purpose of promoting progress in the arts and sciences. While it's hard to determine exactly which piece of art leads to progress, and therefore we should not grant copyright based on the merit of a work, we *should* grant copyright for a certain amount of time, as incentive, and no more time than necessary. 70 years past the death of the author is extremely excessive. Even 70 years alone is excessive.
To put it into perspective, back then it was only 14 years, and copyright should diminish with technology, not increase, since technology decreases the amount of time to bring something to market and for people to hear about it.
My point is, that while Xbox Live is a closed network, the Xbox itself can still access the rest of the internet, and hence can still be a pawn in a DDoS attack.
That's not really true. For legal reasons. You think people couldn't crack the original Playstation? Even if they could, people couldn't just ship playstation games without paying royalties.
Xbox Live might be a closed network, but I doubt the internet protocol in the xbox forces it to work only on the Xbox Live network. I'm sure someone can write software that'll let Xbox browse the web, which means Xbox can connect to any site on the internet, which means it can participate in a DDoS attack. It's not like you get a special line installed that is directly connected to the Xbox Live network and not connected to anything else. It's still connected to the internet, so it can attack anything on it.
What I learned in highschool is that when you say sarcasm in this instance, you most like mean irony. Yeah, you were also kinda being sarcastic, but I bet you meant irony.
Yeah, obviously I don't understand the possesive form of pronouns. Or maybe it was a typo, like I accidentall left off the last letter of the word.
Your argument that I was in the below average catergory, while wrong, wouldn't have been fallacious if you said I don't properly understand statistics. But saying that I don't understand the possesive form of pronouns is very weak.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way, what does your sig mean?
Holy shit, this is exactly what I was telling my friend a few months ago, but he didn't understand. It's essentially the same thing the article was saying, but I was saying it exactly like you were: If you're going to simulate all the fundamental particles in the Universe, you'd need at least that many to calculate it in real-time. And to calculate it faster than real-time (predict the future) you'd need more fundamental particles than the entire system (the universe). I know I just repeated everything you just said, I'm just excited that someone put it the exact same way I was thinking it.
Just to point out: even though I agree with you, and it seems pretty intuitive, the fact is I don't think I can really *prove* it, because there might be computational shortcuts.
The one other flaw in this is the quantum uncertainty effects. Even though I don't understand quantum mechanics, and have not integrated it into my thought process, hence the above conjecture, I still must concede that it is true, because, apparently it's been proven many many times, and is well grounded. Taking that into account, isn't there at a certain level of the universe, things which can't be calculated and are purely left to chance (non-deterministic)? According to quantum mechanics, God *does* play dice with the universe, and that, by definition, cannot be calculated.
I don't think that really matters. The question is purely theoretical, and it is simply a statement of fact, but not necessarily something you can implement. If you could make a completely closed system, completely closed from the rest of the Universe (sounds a lot like another Universe), then what the guy in the article was saying would be true. I don't think it really matters whether you can actually implement it or not.
Yeah, like someone said in a different reply to your post "Intermediate Value Theorem." Essentially what this means is that in a continuous curve, if the value on one part of the curve is 4 and further along it's 7, (and it's a continuous curve: meaning no holes or gaps) then at some point, the curve will pass through any and every value between 4 and 7.
Applying it to this, if the arrow starts at zero (that's where it starts), and ends up at 1, it must pass through 0.5 first. In other words in has to reach halfway before it reaches it's destination. I know I'm just restating your question; there is a mathematical proof that proves this is true, but it seems kind of intuitive to me.
So zeno said, if it must reach halfway first, it will continually reach the half way point over and over again (first 0.5, then 0.75, then 0.875) so you will never reach your target. What zeno didn't realize is that the sum of an infinite series (the time it takes to reach your target) is not always infinity. So since the time it takes to travel each step gets closer and closer to zero, it never passes a certain point, that point being exactly how long it takes you, in reality, to reach your target.
Can you explain why? .... I don't get it.
You're making the same fallacy that zeno made: an arrow can never reach it's target because it has to reach the halfway point first. While it's true that an arrow has to reach the halfway point first, the conclusion is flawed because zeno assumed that the sum of an infinite series is always equal to infinity, and that's just simply not true.
I think a basic assumption here is that any such computer would be in a closed system, separate from the Universe we are trying to simulate. Anything else would just result in an endless loop (no?).
The thing is, mathematically you can solve a halting problem. In other words, you can prove mathematically whether any specific program will end or not. If a person (a brain) can solve this, why can't any sufficiently advanced computer do the same?
Arg, I hate these kind of arguments. We both agree on the essential facts, but you're saying I shouldn't have a right to register disgust simply because they are legally allowed to do what they are doing. I, for one, do not require permission to register disgust.
This is such a flawed argument. This forum is designed to spread information and to express your opinion about things. We are simply registering disgust with the way these linux distro's are getting together and distorting and defiling linux and the linux spirit.
Being innovative shouldn't be an excuse to be slimy. Like you said, it's legal, but the law isn't the only way of deciding what is right and wrong. If we simply ignored it by saying it's legal, we'd be giving up our way of settling outside the law: bad PR, bad word of mouth, and generally negative opinions all around.
How do you come here and say "but it's legal" with a straight face? Who said anything about legality? Get with it.
Try the library. You'd be surprised at what they have. Sometimes, you suggest a book to add to their collection, and they cooperate.
Amazon.com: Steal this idea, Michael Perelman
Yes, I linked to everybody's favorite patent abuser; I guess it because I like irony or something like that. I strongly recommend anyone even remotely interested in this stuff to read this book.
Having a choice of masters is not the same thing as freedom.
You use the word freedom very loosely. "Freedom" is when anyone can come along, gain some power and do whatever they want, dictatorship. True freedom is when the government protects certain rights of it's citizen, right's that have been determined as critical for freedom.
Actually, it's been shown that medical research is always just as effective, if not more effective, when it is funded by public dollars and not corporate sponsors. Therefore, we should fund medical research with public dollars, and end medical patents, since we end up paying 8 times what we would have if we developed it with public research.
Basically, the parent post is pointing out that this clause is highly contingent on the first part of the clause "to promote the progress of science and useful arts...." In other words, this isn't a right like Freedom of Speech, which is granted even without progress for anything or anyone, (and is only limited in certain cases where there is a direct threat to society, and even then, it isn't limited easily).
Intellectual property however, is not such a right and is (should be) only granted for the purpose of promoting progress in the arts and sciences. While it's hard to determine exactly which piece of art leads to progress, and therefore we should not grant copyright based on the merit of a work, we *should* grant copyright for a certain amount of time, as incentive, and no more time than necessary. 70 years past the death of the author is extremely excessive. Even 70 years alone is excessive.
To put it into perspective, back then it was only 14 years, and copyright should diminish with technology, not increase, since technology decreases the amount of time to bring something to market and for people to hear about it.
"Ignore this sentence"
ROFL
My point is, that while Xbox Live is a closed network, the Xbox itself can still access the rest of the internet, and hence can still be a pawn in a DDoS attack.
That's not really true. For legal reasons. You think people couldn't crack the original Playstation? Even if they could, people couldn't just ship playstation games without paying royalties.
Xbox Live might be a closed network, but I doubt the internet protocol in the xbox forces it to work only on the Xbox Live network. I'm sure someone can write software that'll let Xbox browse the web, which means Xbox can connect to any site on the internet, which means it can participate in a DDoS attack. It's not like you get a special line installed that is directly connected to the Xbox Live network and not connected to anything else. It's still connected to the internet, so it can attack anything on it.
What I learned in highschool is that when you say sarcasm in this instance, you most like mean irony. Yeah, you were also kinda being sarcastic, but I bet you meant irony.
Yeah, obviously I don't understand the possesive form of pronouns. Or maybe it was a typo, like I accidentall left off the last letter of the word.
Your argument that I was in the below average catergory, while wrong, wouldn't have been fallacious if you said I don't properly understand statistics. But saying that I don't understand the possesive form of pronouns is very weak.
But what happens when incentives go beyond what is actually necessary incentive to create that piece of IP? What happens then? Get with it.
Can you explain your sig, it sounds interesting, and it makes me curious.
You know, an equal majority of people are average or *above* average intelligence, what's you point?