If this is true, then it could also be true that information could be exchanged between frames that are misaligned but close enough for interaction. If you had a chain of these, you could go back to... I don't know how far... which sounds a bit strange. I see no reason not to be able to move information backwards. I have no clue about matter.
Not sure about that. It is kind of like with a real-time AI process- Once the old frame is rendered, it probably leaves the vector space and is not saved to prevent memory overload. But agree, if it is "saved"- you could potentially go back and alter it. However, if it is real time (likely) processing, then there is no going back- only trying to transfer information into the future frames based on metatagged data.
No, he is creating a program to demonstrate our paper material using hyperdimensional computation and 3d vector space. It will be included in the paper as a part of the demonstration that the idea is already possible to show on a small scale, then, larger models will follow, but we are working on a planck scale model first.
Stop with this nonsense. Quantum Mechanics isn't a simulation, because it can't be simulated efficiently on a classical computer. That's the end of the discussion.
Lots of people also said videos would never be able to be simulated by AI and that AGI would never exist- YET HERE WE ARE!! Gotta think about what is happening within our world at the moment to see what is possible. Do you really think they are using a classical computer? If they are simulating the universe (ours), then you have no idea how it would be done. Also frame by frame is the only way to do this without infinite storage memory, but it could be done on a classical type computer if it was done 1 frame at a time, because the computer could use an almost "infinite" amount of time to process between frames. The participants (like humans) would never "know" because they are an emergent result of the system - you have to study computer science and AI and 3d vector space to understand this, but it is possible- just like they said simulating video with AI would never be possible- yet here we are and yes, here it is!
@@jessedbrown1980 I understand your idea, but it doesn't work within reason, because quantum mechanics can't be simulated efficiently except by a quantum computer, and if it is simulated on a quantum computer, the simulation would be indistinguishable from "reality", but it couldn't be decomposed into any sort of 'frames'. This discussion is ignorant of the insights of physics of the last 2 decades.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 We already simulate quantum effects in classical computers. It is called quantum anneling. Very easy. If the universe is rendered at one frame at a time using metatagged data, the pixels can "appear" to have quantum qaulities, but they are actually just sharing meta tagged data that makes them appear that way. It would be a way for the system to have an entanglement factor just like we do in video games currently. No "real quantum effects" are needed to simulate quantum effects and we have already proved that using quantum simulators. So your point is mute.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 If the universe were a simulation, the external “computer” does not have to process each frame in our real-time. It could use arbitrarily long intervals from its own perspective to compute the next discrete state-then present it to us as a continuous, real-time flow.
@@jessedbrown1980 Or it could not process them at all. You miss the idea that this is all abstract, so if you could construct the next frame, in some sense it already exists. What you are doing is recapitulating Plato's ideas from ancient times, with a modern twist that we understand computation.
If this is true, then it could also be true that information could be exchanged between frames that are misaligned but close enough for interaction. If you had a chain of these, you could go back to... I don't know how far... which sounds a bit strange. I see no reason not to be able to move information backwards. I have no clue about matter.
Not sure about that. It is kind of like with a real-time AI process- Once the old frame is rendered, it probably leaves the vector space and is not saved to prevent memory overload. But agree, if it is "saved"- you could potentially go back and alter it. However, if it is real time (likely) processing, then there is no going back- only trying to transfer information into the future frames based on metatagged data.
So, Zack is about to create the simulation that we are currently living in.
No, he is creating a program to demonstrate our paper material using hyperdimensional computation and 3d vector space. It will be included in the paper as a part of the demonstration that the idea is already possible to show on a small scale, then, larger models will follow, but we are working on a planck scale model first.
Stop with this nonsense. Quantum Mechanics isn't a simulation, because it can't be simulated efficiently on a classical computer. That's the end of the discussion.
Lots of people also said videos would never be able to be simulated by AI and that AGI would never exist- YET HERE WE ARE!!
Gotta think about what is happening within our world at the moment to see what is possible.
Do you really think they are using a classical computer? If they are simulating the universe (ours), then you have no idea how it would be done. Also frame by frame is the only way to do this without infinite storage memory, but it could be done on a classical type computer if it was done 1 frame at a time, because the computer could use an almost "infinite" amount of time to process between frames. The participants (like humans) would never "know" because they are an emergent result of the system - you have to study computer science and AI and 3d vector space to understand this, but it is possible- just like they said simulating video with AI would never be possible- yet here we are and yes, here it is!
@@jessedbrown1980 I understand your idea, but it doesn't work within reason, because quantum mechanics can't be simulated efficiently except by a quantum computer, and if it is simulated on a quantum computer, the simulation would be indistinguishable from "reality", but it couldn't be decomposed into any sort of 'frames'. This discussion is ignorant of the insights of physics of the last 2 decades.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 We already simulate quantum effects in classical computers. It is called quantum anneling. Very easy. If the universe is rendered at one frame at a time using metatagged data, the pixels can "appear" to have quantum qaulities, but they are actually just sharing meta tagged data that makes them appear that way. It would be a way for the system to have an entanglement factor just like we do in video games currently. No "real quantum effects" are needed to simulate quantum effects and we have already proved that using quantum simulators.
So your point is mute.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 If the universe were a simulation, the external “computer” does not have to process each frame in our real-time. It could use arbitrarily long intervals from its own perspective to compute the next discrete state-then present it to us as a continuous, real-time flow.
@@jessedbrown1980 Or it could not process them at all. You miss the idea that this is all abstract, so if you could construct the next frame, in some sense it already exists. What you are doing is recapitulating Plato's ideas from ancient times, with a modern twist that we understand computation.