If a game can do it, so should we?

[skotosa]

If computer programs, games in particular, use real world logic/equations to run many of the same abstract ideas that they would more or less likely relate to in the real world. And since the real world calculations that are being done by real world physics certainly outweigh the potential of any computer program/game (at least atm). Then wouldn't anything we are capable of coding on a computer automatically mean that it can exist/be done in the real universe we as well?

 

Basically doesn't that mean that our code reflects the mathematics and our world too is based of mathematical then if we can logically and mathematically make a game that has portals for instance, doesn't that follow that so can our universe?

 

 

I'm just so awe struck by this idea that I don't feel like checking my logic in it. I'd rather discuss this with others and have my opinion change that way. Although I think I just thought of a good retort anyways.

[GatorGreen]

Our universe follows a definite set of laws. Code for video games can follow any set of laws that the creator wishes because the end result is just changing the color of pixels on a screen.

[Guest Blanket Fort Collapse]

didn't read/could'nt read/too drunk... common dawg, just let it be, get laid, feel okay and get paid.

[skotosa]

Our universe follows a definite set of laws. Code for video games can follow any set of laws that the creator wishes because the end result is just changing the color of pixels on a screen.

 

Our universe is ultimately governed by math, so our are computer programs. The logic of programs is the same here as it is in it, at its fundamentals maybe just limited/restricted in some ways in the syntax of a language. We are like the Gods of games, given enough control and mastering of the code, we can do with it what we want. This is where I make the comparison, given enough time, as we master and control the "code" of our real universe there should be no limit to what we can create here.

 

I don't know why my font is like that o.O

 

With that, I say, if a game can do it, no doubt we can. Instead of just saying, anything is possible.

I don't know why my font is like that o.O

[Guest RadarJammer]

I facebook therefore I am.

[Freak of the week]

Our universe follows a definite set of laws. Code for video games can follow any set of laws that the creator wishes because the end result is just changing the color of pixels on a screen.

 

Our universe is ultimately governed by math, so our are computer programs. The logic of programs is the same here as it is in it, at its fundamentals maybe just limited/restricted in some ways in the syntax of a language. We are like the Gods of games, given enough control and mastering of the code, we can do with it what we want. This is where I make the comparison, given enough time, as we master and control the "code" of our real universe there should be no limit to what we can create here.

 

I don't know why my font is like that o.O

 

With that, I say, if a game can do it, no doubt we can. Instead of just saying, anything is possible.

I don't know why my font is like that o.O

 

Physical laws are definite. You can try and jump in the air in order to escape the Earth's gravity field as much as you want, but I doubt you'll ever suceed, because you need a speed of around 11.2 km/s in order to do so. We don't create laws so to say, but we obey them, just as everything does around us. Games are a virtual world so there you can make a guy that can do whatever the fuck he wants because you're controlling his world - defining the rules. There you can for example change gravity constant G, define some fundamental physical law which has nothing to do with reality whatsoever - but that doesn't mean that you can control the reality in the same way, because the assumption is that we can't alter the fundamental laws of nature. Then again, this is a materialistic point of view which states that we're all completely described with the fundamental physical laws, and so we all obey them, and that includes our mind and our will, just as everything around us does.

 

Deeper approach tends to complicate things. Are we really defined by the physics? Ultimately, physics is the creation of our minds. It hasn't fallen from the sky. But where does our mind truly come from? Again, physics is ultimately also speaking a model which we use to describe the world around us, which we perceive with our physical senses. But the question inevitably arises: Is that the ultimate truth? Does such a term even have meaning? Maybe we're just asymptotically approaching the ultimate truth, as our science is progressing more and more.

[cruising for burgers]

hello karl

[chenGOD]

Our universe follows a definite set of laws. Code for video games can follow any set of laws that the creator wishes because the end result is just changing the color of pixels on a screen.

 

Our universe is ultimately governed by math, so our are computer programs. The logic of programs is the same here as it is in it, at its fundamentals maybe just limited/restricted in some ways in the syntax of a language. We are like the Gods of games, given enough control and mastering of the code, we can do with it what we want. This is where I make the comparison, given enough time, as we master and control the "code" of our real universe there should be no limit to what we can create here.

 

I don't know why my font is like that o.O

 

With that, I say, if a game can do it, no doubt we can. Instead of just saying, anything is possible.

I don't know why my font is like that o.O

 

Physical laws are definite. You can try and jump in the air in order to escape the Earth's gravity field as much as you want, but I doubt you'll ever suceed, because you need a speed of around 11.2 km/s in order to do so. We don't create laws so to say, but we obey them, just as everything does around us. Games are a virtual world so there you can make a guy that can do whatever the fuck he wants because you're controlling his world - defining the rules. There you can for example change gravity constant G, define some fundamental physical law which has nothing to do with reality whatsoever - but that doesn't mean that you can control the reality in the same way, because the assumption is that we can't alter the fundamental laws of nature. Then again, this is a materialistic point of view which states that we're all completely described with the fundamental physical laws, and so we all obey them, and that includes our mind and our will, just as everything around us does.

 

Deeper approach tends to complicate things. Are we really defined by the physics? Ultimately, physics is the creation of our minds. It hasn't fallen from the sky. But where does our mind truly come from? Again, physics is ultimately also speaking a model which we use to describe the world around us, which we perceive with our physical senses. But the question inevitably arises: Is that the ultimate truth? Does such a term even have meaning? Maybe we're just asymptotically approaching the ultimate truth, as our science is progressing more and more.

 

I wouldn't necessarily say we are defined by the laws of physics, but our corporeal bodies are certainly constrained by them.

[skotosa]

Quantum mechanics seemed to defy what we new of physics until a new systems was created for it. Books like Jules verne rocket Rocket to the Moon and other artistic expressions were though to just be that but we ended up doing it. I'm just narrowing the broadness of the view anything is possible to be what I think is actually more practical.

 

And to really get at the truth of this statement is beyond our current capabilities. To do so would mean knowing what consciousness really is. What is the you that makes you? The firing of nerves? The accumulation of atoms and their orbiting electrons? The gluons? The force that binds them? Then what defines those forces? Are they bound by logic? Do they do seemingly illogical things like the birth and instant death of a creature called Creeper? Like particles appearing and disappearing or taking every possible path.

 

I believe Feyman was first to suggest that empty space may not even be empty but contain elementary particles. That empty space isn't zero energy. Check out Vacuum polarization-describes a process in which a background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairs...

 

My own suspicion is that the universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.

-- philosopher/scientist John Haldane

[noise]

this is the dumbest thread ever made

[Ego]

The physics used in games are not real physics. They are gross simplifications made to resemble real life. They can be bent to do whatever we can imagine because they aren't real in the first place.

[skotosa]

They use real logic, not real physics, that is the underlying premise of my argument.

 

Logic > Physics > Contingency

[cruising for burgers]

today i feel smart, s.m.r.t.....

[Guest cult fiction]

They use real logic, not real physics, that is the underlying premise of my argument.

 

Logic > Physics > Contingency

 

Good lord.

 

You should learn some basic programming. Or take an abstract algebra course.

 

Everything you are saying is nonsense of the highest order.

[SR4]

i no knug fu.

[Guest iep]

[zlemflolia]

The emulated physics in video games is restricted by the real world physics of electrical current and potentials for varying frequencies/codes

 

It's not like you can make computer programs do ANYTHING.

[Guest iep]

you can make computer programs do ANYTHING.

 

 

 

[cruising for burgers]

[skotosa]

The emulated physics in video games is restricted by the real world physics of electrical current and potentials for varying frequencies/codes

 

It's not like you can make computer programs do ANYTHING.

 

Obviously you are not understanding what it is I am saying. I'm not saying computer programs can do Anything/ Everything. I'm only saying that whatever they can do means it can be done someway some how in our reality as well. Factor in the fact that our simulation/program/games are doing more and more things who knows what their limit is right?

 

Also I have taken an Intro to C++ class got an A in it. I did get a B in precal and I'm finally moving to cal if you must know. Also I've been fascinated by the history of Computer Science as well as its potential future and have been reading on it the past few days (admittedly sporadic wiki reading). This is what brought up the idea.

 

And please let me hear some actual sensible retorts instead of "This thread is dumb" or "nonsense". I'm willing to listen, its why I started this thread. To further analysis it.

[skotosa]

To add..

 

 

We can say that our universe is able to do things programs can't do and programs can do things that our universe can't do? Yet both operate on similar logic which we borrowed from our observable world to incorporate in computer science. That has me thinking that if our complex reality does this for us and our programs are reflection of what properties our reality holds then whatever it is our simple (By comparison) programs can do, then our complex reality should be able to do the same by some logical means (either discovered or not even if not inherently viewed as logical).

 

For example, the bizarre behavior and at first seemingly not logical behavior of the quantum world has us wanting to use its strangeness to advance our computational powers by means of a Quantum computer. Where by exploiting the nature and properties of the quantum world (such as entanglement and superposition) to have 0's , 1's and both simultaneously 0's and 1's.

 

This ties in in both by enhancing what computers can do and by bringing computers that much closer to the constituents that is ultimatly our reality. Scientists have already begun trying to establish hypothetical code for such a machine to get an idea of its potentials and limits. The equation 3X5=15 has already been calculated using 5 Atoms and a few of the minor problems in dealing with parallelism of addresses using qu-bits remedied.

[goDel]

To answer your question: no.

 

The key is in your definition of existence, btw. You might want to look (again) at Lawrence Krauss' talk (AAI, 2009) at youtube where he talks about the basic parameters of the universe and what would happen if those would be different to what they are now.

 

Yes, we would (are) able to run simulations in a computer to see what happens. No, that does not automatically imply that those simulations would exist in our traditional sense of the word. Not until we can find a way to prove (by observation) that those non-existing universes do happen.

 

The interesting thing, imo, is that whenever science is really starting to understand a certain subject it is almost implied that we can make a model to run simulations in a computer confirming our observations. And at the moment we do that, the model often has a generalizing power to predict stuff we hadn't seen before (those non-existent universes for instance). Just by playing with a model like that, it can greatly help science to sharpen its understanding of the universe.

 

It smells like pot in here, btw.

[skotosa]

To answer your question: no.

 

The key is in your definition of existence, btw. You might want to look (again) at Lawrence Krauss' talk (AAI, 2009) at youtube where he talks about the basic parameters of the universe and what would happen if those would be different to what they are now.

 

Yes, we would (are) able to run simulations in a computer to see what happens. No, that does not automatically imply that those simulations would exist in our traditional sense of the word. Not until we can find a way to prove (by observation) that those non-existing universes do happen.

 

The interesting thing, imo, is that whenever science is really starting to understand a certain subject it is almost implied that we can make a model to run simulations in a computer confirming our observations. And at the moment we do that, the model often has a generalizing power to predict stuff we hadn't seen before (those non-existent universes for instance). Just by playing with a model like that, it can greatly help science to sharpen its understanding of the universe.

 

It smells like pot in here, btw.

 

Not that those simulations would automatically exist in our universe but that it is possible for them to.

[Guest theSun]

if we can create a reasonably accurate simulation of our own world, we could we begin to test the limits of "reality" in the simulation without real world effects.

 

that said, we still have quite a ways to go before any simulation could come close to mimicking the whole planet, galaxy or universe. we are, however, OK at predicting/knowing what's going on with smaller, incomplete world systems, such as weather forecast and physics.

 

edit - maybe a little tangential from op but the first post doesn't really make a lot of sense to me

[skotosa]

if we can create a reasonably accurate simulation of our own world, we could we begin to test the limits of "reality" in the simulation without real world effects.

 

that said, we still have quite a ways to go before any simulation could come close to mimicking the whole planet, galaxy or universe. we are, however, OK at predicting/knowing what's going on with smaller, incomplete world systems, such as weather forecast and physics.

 

edit - maybe a little tangential from op but the first post doesn't really make a lot of sense to me

 

My bad. The idea has become more cohesive as I've been bombarded with peoples explanations. I know I said "automatically exist" but I find that too strong of a proposition I'd rather like to say "means to imply that it can/could possibly exist in our reality). I also realize which I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned that in a program we have control over its code and its certainty not by any means the same code (Assuming our universe operates on some kind of code) as ours. However, different languages exist, whose to say there isn't some type of language ultimately giving way to our physics. Then the question would be can we obtain control over are own code? If we could develop a simulated consciousness could it analyze their universe and alter its own code?

 

http://www.tweak3d.n...trixnow)(video)