Whoa, Dude, Are We Inside a Computer Right Now? - VICE

[the.crooked]

"Which would explain why there have been reports of scientists observing pixels in the tiniest of microscopic images.

Right. The universe is also pixelated—in time, space, volume, and energy. There exists a fundamental unit that you cannot break down into anything smaller, which means the universe is made of a finite number of these units. This also means there are a finite number of things the universe can be; it’s not infinite, so it’s computable. And if it only behaves in a finite way when it’s being observed, then the question is: Is it being computed? Then there’s a mathematical parallel. If two things are mathematically equivalent, they’re the same. So the universe is mathematically equivalent to the simulation of the universe."

 

This is wrong. Just plain wrong. Discussions of pixelation or other models is not talking about what is but rather our most practical way of understanding what we think is.

 

One of the things that even gives this article legs is being denied in this one spot. To claim that the universe is finite, and that our ability to understand it is finite, is an appeal against the idea that we can refine our processing (e.g. moore's law) continually.

 

vice can be cool, but this article is trash.

[shai]

Even though the article wasn't about AI I think sentience and potentiality should have been explained, or at least touched on.

[vanfullofretards]

One of the things that even gives this article legs is being denied in this one spot. To claim that the universe is finite, and that our ability to understand it is finite, is an appeal against the idea that we can refine our processing (e.g. moore's law) continually.

 

Ahh nice! I was looking for some good criticism out of this thread damnit, haha I can't believe I got it.

 

Why is the "pixelization" model (universe is finite) an appeal against moore's law?

I'm far from understanding all of this by the way, so enlighten

[the.crooked]

it's not that the model argues against it, it's the mis-representation of a model.

 

Models do not define reality, so imposing a model onto reality and saying "because this model works, reality is finite" is simply a misunderstanding of how science works.

[vanfullofretards]

Right, I misspoke - models only help explain complex ideas or equations. Like when you have Bill Nye standing in a field and he's holding a basketball "If this was Earth, Pluto would be 5,000 feet over there"

 

Think of the pixels on a computer screen. Each pixel on a computer screen is analogous to a Higgs-Boson; however' date=' this computer screen is 3 dimensional and fills the universe. On your computer screen, when a pixel is "on" it emits a color (other than black), when it is off, it is black. A Higgs-Boson, when it is on, it creates mass and when it is off, it is undetectable.[/quote']^the pixel model... pretty much

 

But how does the idea that the universe is finite argue against Moore's Law? I think I have an idea of the answer, but i want to hear what you think

 

I have a feeling anything we discuss in this area of science will be waaay too simply put. I don't know if that's such a bad thing though...?

[the.crooked]

Moore's law is often misunderstood itself. It was itself a ratio between the number of components in integrated circuitry and the time in between the doubling of that number.

 

These days that ratio can be expanded to many aspects of computing, most important in this case, processing speed and capacity. This capacity continues to be constrained by the ability to reduce the size and power required for storing and processing information. Hence its relevance to the idea of Singularity (Ray Kurzweil's name for the moment when strong AI or computational consciousness is developed). Further, that capacity is only possible through the imposition of an infinite system (numbers as applied in science) to the development of better and smaller technologies. As we move further right of the decimal point, we increase our accuracy and precision in not only our ability to predict outcomes in science, but also the measures of quality and theory that allow us to continue to maintain moore's law.

 

As recently as last year we were worried we were reaching the macro-physical limitations of moore's law. What you are finding, however, is that companies like Intel are continuing to push limits by using things like 3d gates in processors to allow for even creating a third state through physical means (the import from quantum theory or computing is the ability to hold not just 1 or 0 but a third state as well).

 

Even the concept of quantum computing relies on the infinite nature of reality and our ability to model that reality.

 

In essence, arguing that the universe is finite, it means that there is an end to moore's law. If that were the case, it doesn't bode well for the idea that the article is espousing, as we are moving towards what would be that limitation if it were real.

[MedicineCabinet]

[nsmbfan]

ok so this is actually a debate now?

 

"It’s an idea that every college student with a gravity bong and The Matrix on DVD has thought of before"

 

on the money with this one.

 

 

he references Moore's Law. Moore's Law states that the speed of the processor would double every two years or so.

 

I wrote a paper about it. So I'm sort of a credible source on information regarding super technology.

 

 

 

Long story short, that shit doesn't hold water. We've already "hit a wall" in processor design. Where in which we cannot fit anymore transistors on a die, even when we use Nano tech. we'll need Femto technology to achieve next level shit. And that kind of precision...

 

well..

 

it's still being worked out by human beings who can't wipe their asses properly. we're barely out of the woods. don't expect this shit anytime soon.

[the.crooked]

nsmbfan, it'd be good if you read the responses, as that's been addressed already.