The K M Links Game - January 2025 Week 1
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Who Was The Creator?
173 Answers
The God of Abraham is just one among many.
http://
Other ideas welcome.
http://
Other ideas welcome.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In regards to the Matrix idea, I gave this a bit of thought a while back and I reckon that it might actually be possible to test this idea! The idea behind the test would be the principle that, regardless of how fantastically fast and brilliant a computer is, it would be fundamentally incapable of coping with doing the continuous calculations required to model continuous space and continuous time. This would show up as a signature of a sort of "blocky" space-time that would leave various signatures that could in principle be searched for.
The idea of testing this isn't original, and related ideas have been around before. I found this in the Telegraph:
http://
The headline is a lie, I think. Scientists haven't answered the question, they've suggested how it could be answered. Still, this is typical of media portrayal of Science. The criticism at the end of the article may have a point, too, but I think it's reasonable to say that even the most powerful computer would have to discretise spacetime at some level, otherwise it would take a billion billion years to calculate the first 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second (both numbers made-up, but the point is still correct. If you have to calculate what happens at every number possible you'll never be able to manage it, be the very nature of uncountably infinite numbers).
Anyway, if space is discretised in a way that echoes what is called "Lattice Quantum Field Theory", it could be suggestive that we're living in a computer simulation after all. It would certainly be nice if the idea could be tested, anyway, although on the face of it the answer is almost certainly "No". Whatever computer it is would have to be phenomenally powerful, capable of simulating the behaviour of something like 10^90 atoms (and goodness only knows how many smaller particles still) over a volume of at least 10^80 cubic metres, for something like 10^17 seconds. That would be no mean achievement to pull that computing task off, especially as you need finer graining than atoms (need to operate at the level at least of quarks), and finer spacing than metres (scales of something like 10^-25 metres required) and shorter times than seconds.
All I'm saying is, I would want to do more than just tip my hat to whoever wrote the computer capable of simulating an entire Universe.
The idea of testing this isn't original, and related ideas have been around before. I found this in the Telegraph:
http://
The headline is a lie, I think. Scientists haven't answered the question, they've suggested how it could be answered. Still, this is typical of media portrayal of Science. The criticism at the end of the article may have a point, too, but I think it's reasonable to say that even the most powerful computer would have to discretise spacetime at some level, otherwise it would take a billion billion years to calculate the first 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second (both numbers made-up, but the point is still correct. If you have to calculate what happens at every number possible you'll never be able to manage it, be the very nature of uncountably infinite numbers).
Anyway, if space is discretised in a way that echoes what is called "Lattice Quantum Field Theory", it could be suggestive that we're living in a computer simulation after all. It would certainly be nice if the idea could be tested, anyway, although on the face of it the answer is almost certainly "No". Whatever computer it is would have to be phenomenally powerful, capable of simulating the behaviour of something like 10^90 atoms (and goodness only knows how many smaller particles still) over a volume of at least 10^80 cubic metres, for something like 10^17 seconds. That would be no mean achievement to pull that computing task off, especially as you need finer graining than atoms (need to operate at the level at least of quarks), and finer spacing than metres (scales of something like 10^-25 metres required) and shorter times than seconds.
All I'm saying is, I would want to do more than just tip my hat to whoever wrote the computer capable of simulating an entire Universe.
"//just not mathematically important//
It doesn’t need to be mathematically important. This thread is not about mathematics and my interest is not restricted to mathematics. In the context of this thread, depending upon which way you look at it, history might be very important."
Yes, on the face of it I probably answered my own question really. I do find the History of Maths interesting. I suppose when I said it didn't particularly matter, I was mainly wondering why Khandro was making such a big thing of it in the first place.
It doesn’t need to be mathematically important. This thread is not about mathematics and my interest is not restricted to mathematics. In the context of this thread, depending upon which way you look at it, history might be very important."
Yes, on the face of it I probably answered my own question really. I do find the History of Maths interesting. I suppose when I said it didn't particularly matter, I was mainly wondering why Khandro was making such a big thing of it in the first place.
for reference:
//Professor Millican did, however, add that he believed it was beneficial to conduct research into such theories.
"It is an interesting idea, and it’s healthy to have some crazy ideas. You don’t want to censor ideas according to whether they seem sensible or not because sometimes important new advances will seem crazy to start with."
"You never know when good ideas may come from thinking outside the box. This matrix thought-experiment is actually a bit like some ideas of Descartes and Berkeley, hundreds of years ago.
“Even if there turns out to be nothing in it, the fact that you have got into the habit of thinking crazy things could mean that at some point you are going to think of something that initially may seem rather way out, but turns out not to be crazy at all."//
//Professor Millican did, however, add that he believed it was beneficial to conduct research into such theories.
"It is an interesting idea, and it’s healthy to have some crazy ideas. You don’t want to censor ideas according to whether they seem sensible or not because sometimes important new advances will seem crazy to start with."
"You never know when good ideas may come from thinking outside the box. This matrix thought-experiment is actually a bit like some ideas of Descartes and Berkeley, hundreds of years ago.
“Even if there turns out to be nothing in it, the fact that you have got into the habit of thinking crazy things could mean that at some point you are going to think of something that initially may seem rather way out, but turns out not to be crazy at all."//
Hey you guys, please stop "educating" me about the NON-EXISTENCE of our great men.
Just when did real people start to exist?. After scribing or printing? Nope that won't wash as the writers could have been fantasists.
It's important for our education of the young that they identify an established fact with a name.
Besides, in ancient times, word-of-mouth was vital for survival and at least, I believe, was as accurate as wikipoedia today.
So I believe Pythagoras did exist, he did visit India where he learned or confirmed his theorem. It was 100's of years BC so why not accept the previously accepted "facts" - rejection get's us nowhere!
As regards myth or reality, be careful what you look for - the finding of absolute truth could well be devastating.
Yup, don't tell me, that's my version of the arabic truism: "be careful what you wish for".
SIQ.
Just when did real people start to exist?. After scribing or printing? Nope that won't wash as the writers could have been fantasists.
It's important for our education of the young that they identify an established fact with a name.
Besides, in ancient times, word-of-mouth was vital for survival and at least, I believe, was as accurate as wikipoedia today.
So I believe Pythagoras did exist, he did visit India where he learned or confirmed his theorem. It was 100's of years BC so why not accept the previously accepted "facts" - rejection get's us nowhere!
As regards myth or reality, be careful what you look for - the finding of absolute truth could well be devastating.
Yup, don't tell me, that's my version of the arabic truism: "be careful what you wish for".
SIQ.
Dear scooping,
Very well done: you have put 12 questions, given 305 answers of which 2 were awarded best answers - percentage-wise I wish I had that record!
You must be a potential great contributor to this thread are you still tracking this thread or the alternative?
I hope so despite your apparent innocent confusion - any probs?
Regards,
SIQ.
Very well done: you have put 12 questions, given 305 answers of which 2 were awarded best answers - percentage-wise I wish I had that record!
You must be a potential great contributor to this thread are you still tracking this thread or the alternative?
I hope so despite your apparent innocent confusion - any probs?
Regards,
SIQ.
Dear jomifl,
Re your Possibility/probability "relationship".
Nice answer to an insult even if the relationship is not universally applicable (although it could well-be so within our closed world of AB).
As usual, I admire your stick-toitive-ness in favour of seriousness allied to humour.
But I think that the answer lies in Star Trek. not in logic or science.
Best Wishes,
SIQ.
Re your Possibility/probability "relationship".
Nice answer to an insult even if the relationship is not universally applicable (although it could well-be so within our closed world of AB).
As usual, I admire your stick-toitive-ness in favour of seriousness allied to humour.
But I think that the answer lies in Star Trek. not in logic or science.
Best Wishes,
SIQ.
Jim, I tried again - still no joy – yet from today’s Telegraph, no problem....
//Senior Liberal Democrats have privately been warned that the party could be left with no MEPs after next month’s European Parliament elections, The Daily Telegraph can disclose…..//
Just one of life's little mysteries I suppose.
solvitquick, what insult?
//Senior Liberal Democrats have privately been warned that the party could be left with no MEPs after next month’s European Parliament elections, The Daily Telegraph can disclose…..//
Just one of life's little mysteries I suppose.
solvitquick, what insult?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank0 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
