Live data from Hacker News

Can water solve a maze? [video]

youtube.com

21–30 of 133 posts

Re: Can water solve a maze? [video]

#21

The thing that I found most interesting was actually the little side discussion about all mazes being two pieces. Something that I had never considered, but seems fairly self evident (assuming only one path exists through the maze). Also makes me wonder what a proof would look like.

> Also makes me wonder what a proof would look like.

Start with the simplest possible maze (i.e. one square with a start and a finish) which will be in two pieces. Then show that all possible additions will not add further pieces except for when you "cut" into an existing piece to make a separate non-solution route (i.e. a looped route that takes you back to the same point).

(Having any loops in the maze would break the condition of there being only one solution as you could take a detour round the loop as many times as you like and thus have an infinite number of "solutions")

Re: Can water solve a maze? [video]

#22
post #14

A computer is a computer, and our universe is a computer. So, it's possible we're living in a simulation but not one that was intentionally constructed by a higher life form, but rather, a simulation that emerged from nature (e.g. electrons whizzing along the surface of silica rock on a desolate planet). Our universe could recursively be computers all the way down.

If it is a simulation, what is it simulating? There would have to be a "real" reference to compare against?

I don't think a simulation needs to simulate anything real. Eg. if I have a program that runs Conway's game of life, that would be also be a simulation, but there's nothing "real" it references against.

In other words, the universe simulating ours might work completely differently, and some beings there are just testing how different laws of physics (i.e. ours) work out.

Re: Can water solve a maze? [video]

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A computer is always imperfect though, compared to the universe, which is very stable and extremely perfect to the last detail. I don't think we can even compare since the scale and the domain is so vast.

If a tree is standing in a forest, but no one is there to watch it. Does the tree get rendered every frame?

No, it doesn't.

Re: Can water solve a maze? [video]

#24

He's wrong about why that maze towards the end of the video doesn't empty out the supply tank. It's not surface tension, but rather it is the fact that the path goes up and down. The down parts of the path will be filled with air, and the up parts will be filled with water. Water is more dense than air, so the supply must have more pressure than the sum of all the heights of the up parts in order for water to flow. T…

I thought so, because the first area of surface tension he pointed out is disconnected from the rest of the water. So that surface tension alone would have to explain it. But there was a lot of water up there!

I guess it is the same as the upsidedown glass of water with a sheet of paper underneath trick.

Re: Can water solve a maze? [video]

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A computer is always imperfect though, compared to the universe, which is very stable and extremely perfect to the last detail. I don't think we can even compare since the scale and the domain is so vast.

If a tree is standing in a forest, but no one is there to watch it. Does the tree get rendered every frame?

Depends on the programmer.

Re: Can water solve a maze? [video]

#26
post #14

A computer is a computer, and our universe is a computer. So, it's possible we're living in a simulation but not one that was intentionally constructed by a higher life form, but rather, a simulation that emerged from nature (e.g. electrons whizzing along the surface of silica rock on a desolate planet). Our universe could recursively be computers all the way down.

If it is a simulation, what is it simulating? There would have to be a "real" reference to compare against?

If I launch a random cellular automaton there isn't as much a real reference I'm trying to compare it to as just seeing what cool things it does. Maybe I can coax it into something comparable if I want, e.g. pick rule 110 and set it up to run ChatGPT and write this comment, but the only "realness" requirement is it follow what logic allows not it has a real reference it's supposed to emulate and be compared to.

Re: Can water solve a maze? [video]

#27

A computer is a computer, and our universe is a computer. So, it's possible we're living in a simulation but not one that was intentionally constructed by a higher life form, but rather, a simulation that emerged from nature (e.g. electrons whizzing along the surface of silica rock on a desolate planet). Our universe could recursively be computers all the way down.

The simulation theory simply postpones the hard problem of consciousness. It's like a magician trick, pulling wool over the eyes, moving your attention away from the real problem long enough, so that you stop thinking about it.

Even without consciousness, the existence of the universe faces the same causality issues.

Re: Can water solve a maze? [video]

#28
post #14

A computer is a computer, and our universe is a computer. So, it's possible we're living in a simulation but not one that was intentionally constructed by a higher life form, but rather, a simulation that emerged from nature (e.g. electrons whizzing along the surface of silica rock on a desolate planet). Our universe could recursively be computers all the way down.

If it is a simulation, what is it simulating? There would have to be a "real" reference to compare against?

Factorio running inside minecraft running inside roblox.

Re: Can water solve a maze? [video]

#29
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is a simulation, what is it simulating? There would have to be a "real" reference to compare against?

If I launch a random cellular automaton there isn't as much a real reference I'm trying to compare it to as just seeing what cool things it does. Maybe I can coax it into something comparable if I want, e.g. pick rule 110 and set it up to run ChatGPT and write this comment, but the only "realness" requirement is it follow what logic allows not it has a real reference it's supposed to emulate and be compared to.

I wouldn't call that a simulation though, it's just a looping process with rules. A simulation implies imitation, so if it's not imitating anything is it a simulation?

Re: Can water solve a maze? [video]

#30
post #22
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is a simulation, what is it simulating? There would have to be a "real" reference to compare against?

I don't think a simulation needs to simulate anything real. Eg. if I have a program that runs Conway's game of life, that would be also be a simulation, but there's nothing "real" it references against. In other words, the universe simulating ours might work completely differently, and some beings there are just testing how different laws of physics (i.e. ours) work out.

The definition of simulation is:

imitation of a situation or process. "simulation of blood flowing through arteries and veins"

I love the game of life but I don't really consider it a simulation, it's a toy that with the right parameters could simulate something.

Post reply on HN