Live data from Hacker News

The frame rate of the universe (2009)

librador.com

11–20 of 69 posts

Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)

#11
He did the monster math and calculated that the frame rate of the universe is 18 septillion FPS.

Let's assume we are already in a game running with this FPS. Could we somehow prove that it's actually a simulation or disprove in the case it's not?

Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)

#12

To me a neat consequence of quantized motion and dimensional extent is that there's a hard limit on angular orientation and hence accuracy. That is to say, it's possible to be far enough away and in a proper position such that a particle in another certain position could not be propelled directly at you, only at positions around you since you could be standing in the middle of the maximum angular resolution of the pr…

Doesn't that require global absolute fixed grid?

Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)

#14

He did the monster math and calculated that the frame rate of the universe is 18 septillion FPS. Let's assume we are already in a game running with this FPS. Could we somehow prove that it's actually a simulation or disprove in the case it's not?

I think a more interesting question is: would it matter if it were?

Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)

#15

He did the monster math and calculated that the frame rate of the universe is 18 septillion FPS. Let's assume we are already in a game running with this FPS. Could we somehow prove that it's actually a simulation or disprove in the case it's not?

Depends...

Are we running in a simulation that has a specific FPS target cap, or is that the "hardware limit"? Maybe the universe will discretely lower the resolution of rocks on Mars to increase FPS for localized users on Earth that it knows are testing such theories.

Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)

#16

He did the monster math and calculated that the frame rate of the universe is 18 septillion FPS. Let's assume we are already in a game running with this FPS. Could we somehow prove that it's actually a simulation or disprove in the case it's not?

This is called simulation theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

AFAIK whether we are in a simulation is undecidable as long as the simulation rules are self consistent...

Philosophy had been dealing with similar problems for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism . The best they come up with is: "I think therefore I am."

Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)

#17
post #3

My physics almost stopped at Newton but I liked the article because it resonates with some thoughts I had about Zeno's arrow paradox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Arrow_parad... What if space is discrete and time is also discrete? Then there is no paradox. It disappears. I find the possibility that the Universe computes in `ticks` and space is discrete to be very soothing and I'm sure it has noth…

Some years ago, when learning about quantum mechanics, and how you could find a particle inside a forbidden region, I connected that with physics engines in games (and how computing them not fast enough can cause things to intersect in odd ways), and I had this idea: What if time flows in discrete steps, but the `ticks` aren't uniformly separated? For example, they could be distributed probabilistically as a Poisson…

I took a creative writing class at University (mostly on a whim). One of the stories I proof-read was a novel about this idea. That the universe didn't tick at a uniform rate and there were people who could "tick" faster or slow. Of course, you run into all sorts of people with breathing and moving through very hard air. The core tenet of the book was that the clock domains of the universe were drifting apart at an accelerated rate and the protagonists were trying to stop it. It was an interesting concept and a fun short story.

Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)

#18
Pratchett would have then said, each of these frames is an entirely new universe, the previous one being destroyed.

"And they are told: 'Wen considered the nature of time and understood that the universe is, instant by instant, recreated anew. Therefore, he understood, there is in truth no past, only a memory of the past. Blink your eyes, and the world you see next did not exist when you closed them. Therefore, he said, the only appropriate state of the mind is surprise. The only appropriate state of the heart is joy. The sky you see now, you have never seen before. The perfect moment is now. Be glad of it.'"

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/46982-thief-of-time

Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)

#19

He did the monster math and calculated that the frame rate of the universe is 18 septillion FPS. Let's assume we are already in a game running with this FPS. Could we somehow prove that it's actually a simulation or disprove in the case it's not?

This is called simulation theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis AFAIK whether we are in a simulation is undecidable as long as the simulation rules are self consistent... Philosophy had been dealing with similar problems for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism . The best they come up with is: "I think therefore I am."

What's the actual "problem" that solipsism deals with? Solipsism is simply a poor explanation of all phenomena, since when one says "nothing exists except my own mind," one could just as easily say "nothing exists except my own mind, that table over there, and the piece of bubblegum stuck under that table." Both explanations account for precisely the same set of phenomena (all observed phenomena), and both can have a multitude of variations applied to them without losing any explaining power. That makes them poor explanations for phenomena, just like "God did it" or "a magician did it" are poor explanations for phenomena.

Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)

#20

To me a neat consequence of quantized motion and dimensional extent is that there's a hard limit on angular orientation and hence accuracy. That is to say, it's possible to be far enough away and in a proper position such that a particle in another certain position could not be propelled directly at you, only at positions around you since you could be standing in the middle of the maximum angular resolution of the pr…

Wow, I had never considered this! Although, as "UnFleshedOne" points out, that would imply a fixed geometry (not necessarily a grid) wouldn't it? We don't know that angles are limited within a "Planck volume," so they could be continuous (not that anything else seems to be!)

If this were true though, I'd think it would give us a fascinating tool!

Post reply on HN