61–70 of 124 posts
The idea of creating computers out of virtual objects has always fascinated me since I first saw someone do it in Minecraft. It really brings up some interesting scenarios that I like to day dream about sometimes. For instance, in a real world simulation, you could build a processor with a gazillion transistors because you don’t have to worry about the same physical limitations like size or heat. Could it take an inp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Each universe gets its own version of Spiderman, and we live in the universe with the fictional Spiderman. That's one theory that matches our observations. Since basically every theory matches our observations, including the theory that there isn't a physical multiverse, every argument is equally specious and aesthetic.
Every theory matches observations given interpretations of those theories , and it's impossible to engage in discourse without additionally engaging in interpretation. So some theories are going to be eliminated from view given one perspective or the other since interpretations must be chosen over others. I think where you're wrong is thinking it's possible to evade this and make the claim that all arguments are spec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every theory matches observations given interpretations of those theories , and it's impossible to engage in discourse without additionally engaging in interpretation. So some theories are going to be eliminated from view given one perspective or the other since interpretations must be chosen over others. I think where you're wrong is thinking it's possible to evade this and make the claim that all arguments are spec…
He watched Spiderman, and it was cool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Each universe gets its own version of Spiderman, and we live in the universe with the fictional Spiderman. That's one theory that matches our observations. Since basically every theory matches our observations, including the theory that there isn't a physical multiverse, every argument is equally specious and aesthetic.
Every theory matches observations given interpretations of those theories , and it's impossible to engage in discourse without additionally engaging in interpretation. So some theories are going to be eliminated from view given one perspective or the other since interpretations must be chosen over others. I think where you're wrong is thinking it's possible to evade this and make the claim that all arguments are spec…
I'm not familiar with this point; is this a reference to model theory? Can you explain or provide a reference to this stuff?
The idea of creating computers out of virtual objects has always fascinated me since I first saw someone do it in Minecraft. It really brings up some interesting scenarios that I like to day dream about sometimes. For instance, in a real world simulation, you could build a processor with a gazillion transistors because you don’t have to worry about the same physical limitations like size or heat. Could it take an inp…
That means the real world simulation would be as big as the real world. To exchange messages from one side to another means the information has to travel from some point in the physical network to another. Although the nodes may be closer in the physical network than in the virtual world, taking less time, that can't be true for any two nodes.
On average, a full simulation of something will be as physically large as the thing itself, and the distance information has to travel is on average the same virtually and physically.
What if it's not a full simulation? Then you can break those rules. I can draw two galaxies and a spaceship that travels between them in seconds therefore achieving your premise.
Can a restricted simulation ever be computationally faster than a reality/a full simulation? My intuition says no. I can't think of a source.
If anyone is looking to buy this game, it's currently on sale at Humble Bundle for $7.50. https://www.humblebundle.com/store/cities-skylines
I remember that classic TDD (transport tycoon) was also turing-complete. You can make logical gates there using trains and railroad signals. Minecraft is not only turing complete, there are multiple complete projects of calculators and microcontrollers done using red stone.
"Quad Core Computer with Redstones" features things like cache, hardware stack, a gpu connected to a 15x15 display, serial input and output port and many other interesting things. Also it's available as download by the creator.
If anyone is looking to buy this game, it's currently on sale at Humble Bundle for $7.50. https://www.humblebundle.com/store/cities-skylines
Don't forget the $150 dlc, that is probably not included. And the base game is pretty minimal
I think this has some meaning for the abundance of life in the multiverse. If most human-created systems of sufficient complexity turn out to accidentally support computation, then maybe most laws of physics support computation. Hey, it's not better or worse than any other way to guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every theory matches observations given interpretations of those theories , and it's impossible to engage in discourse without additionally engaging in interpretation. So some theories are going to be eliminated from view given one perspective or the other since interpretations must be chosen over others. I think where you're wrong is thinking it's possible to evade this and make the claim that all arguments are spec…
> So some theories are going to be eliminated from view given one perspective or the other since interpretations must be chosen over others. I'm not familiar with this point; is this a reference to model theory? Can you explain or provide a reference to this stuff?
I'm leaning on the fact that theories are significations of events, but significations are only possible when relative to an interpretive scheme that allows those events to be connected to the theory.
A deep-math version of this would be picking whether or not you want to work with the axiom of choice or not when using groups to represent vectors (the groups and vectors aren't important here, but they play the role of theories and objects). Deciding whether or not you accept the axiom of choice can a have major impact on what theorems you are willing to accept as justifiable, but the decision is not purely aesthetical, because it's possible to have technical reasons for using the axiom of choice.
Resolving whether or not the axiom of choice for the purposes of your practice can be done but it won't usually be within the scope of the system. Often you need to introduce further information from outside the system to justify use of the axiom. And so you are building on further postulates, making more choices at the exclusion of others.
A more science-y example: It can be seen as a restatement of the Duhem-Quine thesis: you always need postulates to relate a hypothesis to its observation. These postulates might correspond to truth or might not but you are almost working with a set of assumptions with varying levels of validation when doing any scientific work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis
All of this drives out from philosophical school of American Pragmatism, which includes philosophers like Charles Peirce and Charles Morris who pioneered the semiotic theory. To a lesser extent Carnap might fit in this category since he bought the semantics/syntactics/pragmatics distinction that Peirce and Morris created, then set up classical logic as we know it (including model theory), although he's usually considered a positivist.