211–217 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes I see a frozen render. Maybe it only work on Intel CPUs...
Nope. Appears to be broken for Nvidia 10 series. I'm on Intel with a 1070ti + another user reports issues on the 1080ti (see similar post in this thread; reported to author here: https://github.com/chrxh/alien/issues/21 ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've written a lot of software against GPUs, albiet some years back. The main challenge was that many of the best libraries had CUDA support (or CuDNN support on top) but not support for other GPU lines' frameworks. Getting CUDA to work well is hard. Not hard on your laptop, not hard on a particular machine but hard to work everywhere when you dont know the target environment beforehand -- there are different OSs, di…
How viable is it to replace CUDA with compute shaders?
Other orgs are using something written in another language that compiles into CUDA.
Either way, to replace CUDA, that middle component needs to be replaced by someone and ideally it should be the card manufacturers themselves (IMHO.) I cant imagine any small/medium organization having sufficient engineering time to write the middle component and keep them up to date with the slew of new GPUs, OS updates, or new GPU features -- unless it is their core business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A lot of physics seems unnecessarily expensive to compute. How do you know it's all computed? To make a convincing simulation, you just need to simulate in detail the bits that are actually being observed. Everything else that happens could just be approximated at larger and larger granularity the further it is away from an observer.
Nope, long distance entanglement collapse breaks this. You either need exponential blowup to simulate all possible eigenvalues or you need superluminal coordination. There isn’t actually an observed/unobserved distinction in physics. Unless you mean the simulation is specifically targeting humans, which is a vastly more complicated proposal.
It's also the most likely proposal (with current understanding of universe).
Axis of Evil (Cosmology) calls into question the Copernicus views of the universe. Essentially saying our solar system is somehow back at the center of the universe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjVCjdX5XRw
If WE are the subject of the simulation, it's likely everything our instruments observe are like the sky on the Truman show - not there, just phantoms of what we would expect to be there with what the simulation wants us to know about physics.
There's a max speed the speed of light, what if this is the max processing ability of the computer we're running on. What if we're not on a computer at all but some sort of wetware computer system that grows as it needs to, and never runs out of resources?
What if the speed of light in the parent sim is 500x bigger for them, or ours is like a centimeter in comparison.
A dream is a simulation, we could all be dream creatures to some huge extra-dimensional being. Not everything pre-supposes human technology.
I've seen literal "glitches" in reality, so it's pretty easy for me to believe that reality isn't something completely set in stone. For others it challenges everything they believe in, for that I say open your mind.
Donald Hoffman believes that what we see is like what someone in a VR headset sees, outside the VR headset who knows what that world is like, but in this one -- everything except math (which he believes is universal and extra-universal), is made to fit this universe. Physics, science, all of it is unique only inside the headset. There could be many headsets with different settings running parallel (parallel worlds/universes), maybe the speed of light is faster in one than the other, maybe gravity works different, etc... So many things in our understanding are really like "settings" like size of a planck's constant, pie, speed of light, etc. Almost reads like a config file.
I mean if you buy into a "God" being, if computing is a thing which we have it so why wouldn't God? Wouldn't it even make more sense for him to just code up a simulation? I mean it's gotta be a lot less demanding than building a whole universe from nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any evidence suggesting we're not in a simulation?
1. That the simulator must run something much larger than this world much faster than real time. How feasible is that? 2. That the same arguments also apply to our simulator operators. They also inhabit a simulated universe. And so on. Where does it stop, and why?
In a universe where time itself could be fluid, where it could be easy to reverse events, rewrite events, etc - making quantum computers work even way better than we ever could because we're limited by causality.
I mean the people beyond this universe could have 50 senses, like a sense of how far up or down they are, or how much water they can breathe in before they need oxygen if o2 is even a thing, or a sense of time so they can go back/forward through time. If they have 50 senses, our 5 sounds like "nothing" to simulate.
It's all a matter of perspective, I'm sure an ant feels like they keep pretty busy and nothing could possibly simulate their colonies, but I'm sure that would be pretty easy.
Reading through the comments, the number of folks who simply can't get this running on their system seems to be fairly large. The GPU compute ecosystem is truly in a very sorry state, and NVidia is very much to blame for this: in their quest to get a stranglehold on the market, they've reached a point where things don't even work reliably on their own products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does science fiction exists? Or Pokemon? In case your view is that they don't, you may argue similarly that math is a human made construct (which happen to work well to describe our universe, but it may be just survivorship bias as we use in physics only the math that works. For instance we discard imaginary solutions to classical motion equations). I do believe it is the right view, math is a man made "language" ins…
If that's your view that's fine, but it's not the view of GP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, any evidence of complexity (assuming that simpler universes are more likely) is evidence against the simulation hypothesis: The Simplicity Assumption and Some Implications of the Simulation Argument for our Civilization https://osf.io/ca8se (I'm the author :) )
complexity and simplicity seems pretty biased to human understanding? Just as a thought experiment, I'd propose that our universe and the human experience is incredibly simple. Humans were only given a limited number of senses so that the simulation can be run in this "low fidelity". Compared to the thousands of senses a level or two up. We also are simulated in a simple linear time model, only able to experience a s…