But you can't get around having anough storage, at last. OK, I wasn't very exact here. Although even the computing power argument is in fact very strong: For simulating the earth at 1/1000000 speed, you need 1/1000000 of the earth - at least (theoretically, practically, it will be quite a few orders of magnitude more)...
Is it that hard to understand? If you really want to simulate something perfect, you need a computer larger than what's simulated. Otherwise, one could simulate a larger computer with a small one. Cool, infinite computing power! See the problem? As discussed here one can make optimisation at the cost of little errors, but as I stated, I think we would perceive this if it wasn't specificaly designed for us, and if it was designed for us, we would be very important.
The problem is not only CPU time but also storage.
And BTW: What's real time? You can only speak of RT when simulating an equal or very similar system as the one you live in. Could be something completely different. And our world takes a bit mor than fifteen frames a second. We can measure time slices of femtoseconds, so it must be smaller than that.
Everyone has to decide for himself. From the little I hav seen form the world I would conclude that there is no such inconsistency. I may be wrong. But it's always like that with science, and here it's even harder than while talking about simple laws of physics.
In a universe where real randomness exists, why can't you connect your computer to a source of it? Don't see your point there. OK, we can argue about if real randomness exists anywhere. That would lead to the question if life is possible - I mean if it can develop without some source of entropy. I think it can't, although it could develop in a deterministic system, if the initial state contained enough entropy. So, in my opinion, without som source of entropy, there would be no kind of life, therefore no intelligence (which needs entropy by itself, too, I think), and no simulation.
Yeah. Of course there could be optimisations. But if you really make it imperfect as you said - like video compression - somday one will notice some inconsistency. We haven't noticed that yet - seems to be all very consistent with the laws of physics, or if we find inconsistencies, it doesn't look like computational errors (assuming that their machines are similar to our ones). And lossless optimizations/compressions wouldn't really do it. And what you say would really mean one does care about _us_! Specifically simulated for the human race.
Why should one bother? Assuming we were simulated, would the simulators bother about some earth in there, inside that about 20-billion-lighyear in diameter measuring universe (at least), some 12000 km in diameter planet? And we're only covering about 20-100 metres of the surface of that. Would they discover us? Maybe they would just shut it down someday - "No life again. Give it another try"
And when the simulation ends that supreme being will punish those who failed to discover him and will reward those who found him.
The question that comes to mind here: Why not the other way around? That you mean it's that way only shows that you are a human and what you would want those beings to do, but why sould someone outside of time and space want that?
Simple mechanics isn't quite as hard to simulate. Although relativity would already be a bit harder. But quantum physics - if it is like we're believing today - would need real computing power. Think of quantum computers - if one can build them like that one had very much computing power. One needs at least as mucht to simulate them.
You can't build a copmuter capable of simulating the earth on earth. And likewise, those humans simulated in the computer can't build a computer with more computing power than the one they are simulated in. Would be too k3wl if I could simulate a faster computer with my slow one, wouldn't it?
Umm, you could certainly simulate uncertainity. That would be more a point for what the article states - with a digital computer, you have a limited number of digits to save, and what would be better to hide the errors of those computations than uncertainity?
Two baseless claims. First, we won't ever have the computing power to simulate a universe. That's simple to find out: If you want to simulate something completely, Your computer hase to be bigger than what you want to simulate. Because somewhere you have to store all the information, and you'll need exactly as much quantums to store the information about them as you simulate. Conclusion: we won't be able to even simulate the earth.
For sure, that doesn't yet prove we aren't a simulation. One can't prove or disprove anything about that, and that's why this isn't science. There could of course be a universe with enough storage and computing power to simulate our universe (and that could again be a simulation etc). If you know something about quantum physics maybe you can imagine what computing power is necessary - for each single quantum, you need to compute the forces to each other, and some probabilities, too. We're far from even simulating very little amounts of matter today. But saying it would be more probable we're being simulated is like giving probabilities for the existence of a god - ie one can't say anything about it. It's outside of what one can give something like probabilities for. The only thing we could look for was if we find evidence for that our universe is simulated with computers similar to the ones we're using today, ie we could search for typical errors or something like rounding...
Please let's start discussing what we build on that - do we want anachy? Minarchy? Or just a plain democratic state with a constitution? Communism? I'm voting for anarchy.
I have to admit that as a German I do not really like our law system. Sounds very good what you say there, but I'll tell you that you can actually block things with lawsuits. It happens all the time. And don't think of fighting with big corporations. As ridiculous it is in the USA as you stated (McDonalds), in Germany it is the other way around: You won't have a chance against big corporations, even if you had a real damage caused by them and everyone with a sane mind would say you're right.
And finally, the German laws are damn complicated. It's not coincidence that we need that many lawyers. German laws have that many exceptions because of lawmakers being influenced by far too many lobbies, and such, what may be valid for green bonbons may not be valid for blue ones... (a bit exaggerated, but it's nearly like that)
No. It isn't the LinuxTag. (nt)
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
you could have looked more closely at it... that was the old Yopy which is already available for a long time which hat no frontlight. The new ones released now have.
it can be 1000 lines of code exactly the same if it isn't copied (and doesn't violate a patent), although that is a bit more unlikely.
Copyright does only apply if you copy it. NOT when you end up having written the same as someone else did.
Why not coins in 1, 2, 4, 8 etc units? Sure, there would be more coins needed but the advantages are the simplicity, quickness (at least for those who understand binary) and a very high probability that one is able to change even when there are not too many coins left. And all the computer freaks would love it!
In my opinion, computers are there for being exact. Not fuzzy. My idea is that they do exactly what I want them to do.
And thats impossible wit handwriting recognition, because often enough, it's ambiguous...
Don't we already have the humans for the inexact part of the work?
You don't press CDs if you only sell in amounts of some thousand, because it's to expensive. It's again the way many people think - they ignore that there are people who do not produce for the mass market, but only for few people. But many only see what the big companies do, and so, CD-Rs can only be for illegal uses.
Reiserfs does already handle more than 17! ("extraordinarily difficult" and "never reached fruition" indeed). Implementing a file system with a one TB limit today doesn't look very farsighted - it will be outdated by 2005!
But sure, will be enough for everyone...
Just found statistics for Germany:
2.35M accidents in 2000 (80M habitants) - and remember, there are at least two involved in every accident (ok, there are exceptions...). In 382k out of them there was someone hurt. Yeah, but the percentage is close to zero? Presuming every accident hit someone else (I know that isn't really correct) it would be 0.5 % per year and person!
Or do you think fatal accidents are only when someone died? 7k in Germany 2000, 0.01 %. But that's more than 0.5 % in your live - that's that you die from a car accident.
So, for you, more than twenty percent are close to zero...
It's a myth that vacuum would be that much harder to maintain.
Plains leak just because there is nothing that would force the producers to stop that. Why? It's not necessary. Planes can leak a bit. As long as they aren't getting out of air, that's not dangerous. It would cost mauch more for a plane because it's a complex system. They have windows, doors, etc. and all that shouldn't weight much...
This is typical "you can't do that today so you can't ever do it". But actually, we could. It won't be easy for the first tim, but once you have the know-how in connection details etc. it won't be more expensive than a normal tunnel.
Slashdot Mirror
But you can't get around having anough storage, at last. OK, I wasn't very exact here.
Although even the computing power argument is in fact very strong: For simulating the earth at 1/1000000 speed, you need 1/1000000 of the earth - at least (theoretically, practically, it will be quite a few orders of magnitude more)...
Already answered to that question. If you had read what Gandalf04 worte you wouldn't have needed to post.
So just read my answer to Gandalf04's post.
Is it that hard to understand?
If you really want to simulate something perfect, you need a computer larger than what's simulated. Otherwise, one could simulate a larger computer with a small one. Cool, infinite computing power! See the problem?
As discussed here one can make optimisation at the cost of little errors, but as I stated, I think we would perceive this if it wasn't specificaly designed for us, and if it was designed for us, we would be very important.
The problem is not only CPU time but also storage.
And BTW: What's real time? You can only speak of RT when simulating an equal or very similar system as the one you live in. Could be something completely different.
And our world takes a bit mor than fifteen frames a second. We can measure time slices of femtoseconds, so it must be smaller than that.
Everyone has to decide for himself.
From the little I hav seen form the world I would conclude that there is no such inconsistency. I may be wrong. But it's always like that with science, and here it's even harder than while talking about simple laws of physics.
In a universe where real randomness exists, why can't you connect your computer to a source of it? Don't see your point there.
OK, we can argue about if real randomness exists anywhere. That would lead to the question if life is possible - I mean if it can develop without some source of entropy. I think it can't, although it could develop in a deterministic system, if the initial state contained enough entropy.
So, in my opinion, without som source of entropy, there would be no kind of life, therefore no intelligence (which needs entropy by itself, too, I think), and no simulation.
OK, I think that free will is an illusion anyway, but why should randomness be? The simulation could have a random number generator, couldn't it?
(100% ACK to the rest of your post. Doesn't seem very probeble to make a simulation of that entire universe only for us.)
Yeah. Of course there could be optimisations.
But if you really make it imperfect as you said - like video compression - somday one will notice some inconsistency. We haven't noticed that yet - seems to be all very consistent with the laws of physics, or if we find inconsistencies, it doesn't look like computational errors (assuming that their machines are similar to our ones).
And lossless optimizations/compressions wouldn't really do it.
And what you say would really mean one does care about _us_! Specifically simulated for the human race.
Why should one bother? Assuming we were simulated, would the simulators bother about some earth in there, inside that about 20-billion-lighyear in diameter measuring universe (at least), some 12000 km in diameter planet? And we're only covering about 20-100 metres of the surface of that. Would they discover us?
Maybe they would just shut it down someday - "No life again. Give it another try"
The question that comes to mind here: Why not the other way around? That you mean it's that way only shows that you are a human and what you would want those beings to do, but why sould someone outside of time and space want that?
Simple mechanics isn't quite as hard to simulate. Although relativity would already be a bit harder. But quantum physics - if it is like we're believing today - would need real computing power. Think of quantum computers - if one can build them like that one had very much computing power. One needs at least as mucht to simulate them.
You can't build a copmuter capable of simulating the earth on earth. And likewise, those humans simulated in the computer can't build a computer with more computing power than the one they are simulated in.
Would be too k3wl if I could simulate a faster computer with my slow one, wouldn't it?
Umm, you could certainly simulate uncertainity. That would be more a point for what the article states - with a digital computer, you have a limited number of digits to save, and what would be better to hide the errors of those computations than uncertainity?
Two baseless claims.
First, we won't ever have the computing power to simulate a universe. That's simple to find out: If you want to simulate something completely, Your computer hase to be bigger than what you want to simulate. Because somewhere you have to store all the information, and you'll need exactly as much quantums to store the information about them as you simulate. Conclusion: we won't be able to even simulate the earth.
For sure, that doesn't yet prove we aren't a simulation. One can't prove or disprove anything about that, and that's why this isn't science.
There could of course be a universe with enough storage and computing power to simulate our universe (and that could again be a simulation etc). If you know something about quantum physics maybe you can imagine what computing power is necessary - for each single quantum, you need to compute the forces to each other, and some probabilities, too. We're far from even simulating very little amounts of matter today.
But saying it would be more probable we're being simulated is like giving probabilities for the existence of a god - ie one can't say anything about it. It's outside of what one can give something like probabilities for.
The only thing we could look for was if we find evidence for that our universe is simulated with computers similar to the ones we're using today, ie we could search for typical errors or something like rounding...
Please let's start discussing what we build on that - do we want anachy? Minarchy? Or just a plain democratic state with a constitution? Communism?
I'm voting for anarchy.
I have to admit that as a German I do not really like our law system. Sounds very good what you say there, but I'll tell you that you can actually block things with lawsuits. It happens all the time.
And don't think of fighting with big corporations. As ridiculous it is in the USA as you stated (McDonalds), in Germany it is the other way around: You won't have a chance against big corporations, even if you had a real damage caused by them and everyone with a sane mind would say you're right.
And finally, the German laws are damn complicated. It's not coincidence that we need that many lawyers. German laws have that many exceptions because of lawmakers being influenced by far too many lobbies, and such, what may be valid for green bonbons may not be valid for blue ones... (a bit exaggerated, but it's nearly like that)
no text
you could have looked more closely at it...
that was the old Yopy which is already available for a long time which hat no frontlight. The new ones released now have.
it can be 1000 lines of code exactly the same if it isn't copied (and doesn't violate a patent), although that is a bit more unlikely. Copyright does only apply if you copy it. NOT when you end up having written the same as someone else did.
Why not coins in 1, 2, 4, 8 etc units?
Sure, there would be more coins needed but the advantages are the simplicity, quickness (at least for those who understand binary) and a very high probability that one is able to change even when there are not too many coins left. And all the computer freaks would love it!
In my opinion, computers are there for being exact. Not fuzzy. My idea is that they do exactly what I want them to do. And thats impossible wit handwriting recognition, because often enough, it's ambiguous... Don't we already have the humans for the inexact part of the work?
You don't press CDs if you only sell in amounts of some thousand, because it's to expensive. It's again the way many people think - they ignore that there are people who do not produce for the mass market, but only for few people. But many only see what the big companies do, and so, CD-Rs can only be for illegal uses.
Reiserfs does already handle more than 17! ("extraordinarily difficult" and "never reached fruition" indeed). Implementing a file system with a one TB limit today doesn't look very farsighted - it will be outdated by 2005! But sure, will be enough for everyone...
Just found statistics for Germany: 2.35M accidents in 2000 (80M habitants) - and remember, there are at least two involved in every accident (ok, there are exceptions...). In 382k out of them there was someone hurt. Yeah, but the percentage is close to zero? Presuming every accident hit someone else (I know that isn't really correct) it would be 0.5 % per year and person!
Or do you think fatal accidents are only when someone died? 7k in Germany 2000, 0.01 %. But that's more than 0.5 % in your live - that's that you die from a car accident.
So, for you, more than twenty percent are close to zero...
It's a myth that vacuum would be that much harder to maintain.
Plains leak just because there is nothing that would force the producers to stop that. Why? It's not necessary. Planes can leak a bit. As long as they aren't getting out of air, that's not dangerous. It would cost mauch more for a plane because it's a complex system. They have windows, doors, etc. and all that shouldn't weight much...
This is typical "you can't do that today so you can't ever do it". But actually, we could. It won't be easy for the first tim, but once you have the know-how in connection details etc. it won't be more expensive than a normal tunnel.