Earlier quoted context omitted.
The monster math was "1/(planck time value from Wikipedia)"
Enough qualification for /r/theydidthemonstermath
Did it caught on in a flash?
The frame rate of the universe (2009)
61–69 of 69 posts
Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)
#62He 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.
What if the reason we have not received alien signals is because the universe outside of the solar system has a much lower resolution.
If we are living in a simulation and the goal of the experiment is to study a living civilization it may be unecesary for the experiment to simulate other civilizations if travel between the two is impossible.
Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can only tell it's a VM via sidechannel because you know what not-a-VM would do already. In the case of the universe we have nothing to compare to, no way to say "that's an effect of running on the underlying hardware" vs "that's a special case of how the hardware runs". E.g. one could take speculative execution rollback after certain workloads as timing jitter from being in a VM if they didn't know that's just h…
The difference is that there's an underlying assumption that base reality is analog and perhaps continuous rather than discrete, and definitely not CPU or memory constrained. In the scenario you mention, reality would be a program because it is still run on a computer in either case. If reality isn't a simulation, then we shouldn't be able to DDOS it, or overflow it, crash it, access a memory buffer, get root access,…
> The difference is that there's an underlying assumption that base reality is analog and perhaps continuous rather than discrete
Those seem like pretty unjustifiable assumptions. How can anyone possibly know how physics “should” work?
Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)
#64I've often wondered if the speed of light was somehow related to the computation cycles per second of our universe. For example, imagine if the universe was made of a three dimensional fabric of tiny pixels, and the only way information could move to another adjacent pixel was one universe calculation at a time. So when something without mass is moving across a field of pixels, its speed is capped by the number of un…
How would you propagate information in a 3D pixel array so that it would move at the same speed (and generally, everything would behave identically) in any direction?
Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)
#65I've often wondered if the speed of light was somehow related to the computation cycles per second of our universe. For example, imagine if the universe was made of a three dimensional fabric of tiny pixels, and the only way information could move to another adjacent pixel was one universe calculation at a time. So when something without mass is moving across a field of pixels, its speed is capped by the number of un…
How would you propagate information in a 3D pixel array so that it would move at the same speed (and generally, everything would behave identically) in any direction?
Like Conway's game of life. Time and distance are the same thing. On a chess board, it takes a King 7 moves to reach the other end of the board, regardless how long it takes someone to make that move, or how big chess board is - from King's pov its all the same. Also heard somewhere "speed of causality". There must be some good argument for why it couldn't have been any other way.
Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. If we are in a simulation, then I want our species to eventually learn how to grab control of the developer console, use that to get information on the physics of the developer's world, use that to learn how to perform the equivalent of Drexlerian nanotech, wet-print ouselves out into the developer's world, and bootstrap into becoming "real", or finding out how far the turtles go from the developer's worl…
> Absolutely. If we are in a simulation, then I want our species to [...] bootstrap into becoming "real" Why? Undoubtedly the world outside our own has its own problems, all of which are possibly utterly alien to us. > or finding out how far the turtles go from the developer's world. To what end? Why is the top-most reality more valuable? If it is merely a matter of having more to explore, well, there's still plenty…
> Why?
Selfishly, I don't want our reality to be turned off.
All other motivations follow from that, as intermediate steps to figure out how to break out and become more permanent. Even if I'm a consciousness inside a Boltzmann Brain near the heat death of the reality-actual, a hundred Sol years passing for every "second" of simulation "tick", I want help in whatever way I can on a solution to beat entropy. Not going gentle and all that...
Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you propagate information in a 3D pixel array so that it would move at the same speed (and generally, everything would behave identically) in any direction?
Like Conway's game of life. Time and distance are the same thing. On a chess board, it takes a King 7 moves to reach the other end of the board, regardless how long it takes someone to make that move, or how big chess board is - from King's pov its all the same. Also heard somewhere "speed of causality". There must be some good argument for why it couldn't have been any other way.
I meant, how to make the calculation so that the speed is the same in horizontal and diagonal direction.
Imagine a chessboard where every square is 1 meter wide. When the king moves horizontally, his speed is 1 meter per turn. When he moves diagonally, his speed is 1.4 meter per turn. How would you define the rules so that the speed is same in all angles? (Not just 0 and 45 degrees, but also e.g. 13 degrees.)
Can you make in Conway's game of life an expanding circle that remains circular at large scale (and doesn't become e.g. some kind of octagon)?
In our universe all directions are equivalent. If you fly in a rocket, you can't distinguish between moving horizontally or diagonally according to some hypothetical absolute coordinates of the universe. (The theory of relativity is based on the assumption that there is no such thing as absolute coordinates, not even the coordinate of time!) Which makes me suspect the models that assume the existence of some absolute coordinates (such as a 3D grid of Planck-sized cubes).
Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I welcome a better explanation for the phenomena. AFAIK we've been trying to come up with one for a long time. A brain floating in a nutrient tube and experiencing extremely high fidelity VR you would also claim that table and bubble gum exist. But from perspective of outside observer the only thing that is real is brain in a vat belief that table and bubble gum are real. You are right that solipsism is not the best…
> I welcome a better explanation for the phenomena. For which ones specifically? Generally any traditional scientific or layperson's explanation for a phenomenon is much better, namely the part that explains my observation of some entity by accepting that the observed entity exists. (Note that this doesn't imply that all observed entities exist. There are many cases where we have good explanations for why one would o…
I think that's what he's trying to say here - most of us don't care if the universe is a simulation, just if we can continue to solve problems in it (live).
I think you might struggle with the justification or certainty portion.
Otherwise, adverse feelings towards simulation tend to stem from elsewhere, namely the inability to ascertain what is real (the root of madness), an aversion to that greatest of promised simulations, heaven, or an innate desire to not be trapped in substandard eventualities - e.g. all man made simulations thus far suck hard donkey balls in a myriad of ways.
In light of solving the past three problems, sollipsism at least as I understand you to mean in this context, solves the problem of providing us a framework to tackle dealing with those issues, otherwise for the rest of us, we don't care.
I don't much care for the OPs article either, it's as much nonsense as calculating the size or speed of the universe using Genesis's 7 days of creation - that is to say it is hypothetical if not theoretical and ultimately conjectured.
Re: The frame rate of the universe (2009)
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
A few years ago, I saw a proposal for multiplayer games which suggested that the time passage between ticks vary depending on how many users are playing within a close space, to help deal with the increased network load. This is something that Eve Online does, but it segments its game-space into discrete sectors and therefore it slows down time uniformly in these sectors. This proposal was to do the same, but variabl…
"Does Time Cause Gravity?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKxQTvqcpSg