Detecting floating point mistakes in the universe ;) :)

[Skybuck Flying]

Suppose that we are all living inside a computer simulation... it seems to
make sense because of "physics law" conservation of energy.

No energy is ever lost.

However suppose we live inside a computer simulation which uses floating
points or some other finite numbers then there should be some very very very
very very small
loss somewhere ?!? Since the numbers cannot be infinite... so there would be
some "numerical drift" in the universe.

If this could somehow be detected then this could confirm that we are all
living in a computer simulation ! ;) :)

Bye,
Skybuck :)

[Skybuck Flying]

Hmm maybe it's not only limited to "loss" it could also be "gain".

It depends on the calculations I guess...

Suppose 1/3 is rounded down to 0.333 then some loss occured.

But maybe sometimes the computer rounds back up to 0.3334 thus compensating
it a little bit...

So the universe could also gain some small ammounts of energy because of
numerical drift ;) :)

I am not sure but could be ;)

Bye,
Skybuck.

[Charles D. Bohne]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 00:20:43 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"

Post by Skybuck Flying
I am not sure but could be ;)

Don't worry - this problem will be solved in an instant.
C.

[Jim]

Post by Skybuck Flying
Hmm maybe it's not only limited to "loss" it could also be "gain".
It depends on the calculations I guess...
Suppose 1/3 is rounded down to 0.333 then some loss occured.
But maybe sometimes the computer rounds back up to 0.3334 thus
compensating it a little bit...
So the universe could also gain some small ammounts of energy because of
numerical drift ;) :)
I am not sure but could be ;)

Quake3 had this problem. You could only make certain jumps if your FPS was
high enough. IIRC the problem was there was rounding involved woth the
movement code and the higher your framerate the more rounding up was done
increasing your speed.

[Skybuck Flying]

Post by Jim

Post by Skybuck Flying
Hmm maybe it's not only limited to "loss" it could also be "gain".
It depends on the calculations I guess...
Suppose 1/3 is rounded down to 0.333 then some loss occured.
But maybe sometimes the computer rounds back up to 0.3334 thus
compensating it a little bit...
So the universe could also gain some small ammounts of energy because of
numerical drift ;) :)
I am not sure but could be ;)

Quake3 had this problem. You could only make certain jumps if your FPS
was high enough. IIRC the problem was there was rounding involved woth
the movement code and the higher your framerate the more rounding up was
done increasing your speed.

Yes probably...

But this was a case of converting floating points to integers.

Why would the universe do such a thing ?

I can imagine it a little bit though...

Energy/Light/Gravity... all different forces/things.

If the universe is indeed a computer it might have different rules and
formula's and algorithms to calculate such things.

Maybe somewhere in those calculations there is an floating point to integer
conversion, which would be noticeable in our universe perhaps.

So we would need to find such conversions of energy into light or into
gravity or into heat or something like that.

They say in school, energy is never lost ?!? But is this really true ?

Maybe energy is lost because of floating point to integer conversion... and
back perhaps (fooling as to believe that it was all done with floating
points).

Therefore we human beings should try to construct a "room" where no energy,
no light, no heat, and perhaps even no gravity can escape from...

And then we start doing all of these conversions... from energy to light to
heat to etc... back and forth back and forth.

And then we see if anything is lost... or perhaps even gained ;) :)

If something is indeed lost or gained... and there was no way for it to
escape... then either we don't know everything yet... and somehow it escaped
into another universe
or via another way.... or a simply conclusion could be: FLOATING
inaccuracy/numerical drift/loss=universe is computer.

Bye,
Skybuck ;) =D

[Skybuck Flying]

Post by Jim

Post by Skybuck Flying
Hmm maybe it's not only limited to "loss" it could also be "gain".
It depends on the calculations I guess...
Suppose 1/3 is rounded down to 0.333 then some loss occured.
But maybe sometimes the computer rounds back up to 0.3334 thus
compensating it a little bit...
So the universe could also gain some small ammounts of energy because of
numerical drift ;) :)
I am not sure but could be ;)

Quake3 had this problem. You could only make certain jumps if your FPS
was high enough. IIRC the problem was there was rounding involved woth
the movement code and the higher your framerate the more rounding up was
done increasing your speed.

There is also another example:

Superman and banks.

This negero figured it out and he knew little bits of pennies where being
lost during
all kinds of calculations and he tunneled it into a special account and got
filthy negeroisch rich lol until
they found out or something ! LOL.

I am not sure if it was based on a true story but could be ! ;) :) =D

Bye,
Skybuck =D

[Charles D. Bohne]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 00:12:53 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"

Post by Skybuck Flying
Suppose that we are all living inside a computer simulation...

Well .. actually not all of us .. just you --- you live in my computer,
I found you inside, you're a glitch, I shall delete you in a moment.
HTH.
C.

[MitchAlsup]

Post by Skybuck Flying
However suppose we live inside a computer simulation which uses floating
points or some other finite numbers then there should be some very very very
very very small
loss somewhere ?!? Since the numbers cannot be infinite... so there would be
some "numerical drift" in the universe.

IEEE 754 went WAY out of their way to make sure that rounding in FP
arithmetic had the absolute least amount of bias (that is error).

But supposeing we WERE in a universe simulation: How can you tell that
we were not paged out and put to sleep for a thousand real years a few
seconds ago?

Mitch

[Robert Myers]

Post by MitchAlsup
But supposeing we WERE in a universe simulation: How can you tell that
we were not paged out and put to sleep for a thousand real years a few
seconds ago?

This is precisely the sort of thing that keeps me from falling
asleep. In fact, I worry about blinking. Who knows how many billion
years I might miss in the blink of an eye.

Robert.

[Chet Weaver]

Considering the human mind can only perceive reality at a rate of about 24
frames per second, I doubt that not blinking will keep us from being frozen
for millions of years.

-- Chet Weaver

Post by MitchAlsup
But supposeing we WERE in a universe simulation: How can you tell that
we were not paged out and put to sleep for a thousand real years a few
seconds ago?

This is precisely the sort of thing that keeps me from falling
asleep. In fact, I worry about blinking. Who knows how many billion
years I might miss in the blink of an eye.

Robert.

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Post by Robert Myers

Post by MitchAlsup
But supposeing we WERE in a universe simulation: How can you tell that
we were not paged out and put to sleep for a thousand real years a few
seconds ago?

This is precisely the sort of thing that keeps me from falling
asleep. In fact, I worry about blinking. Who knows how many billion
years I might miss in the blink of an eye.

What? We have to blink? It's a cooperative scheduler?

[Nick Maclaren]

Post by MitchAlsup

Post by Skybuck Flying
However suppose we live inside a computer simulation which uses floating
points or some other finite numbers then there should be some very very
very very very small
loss somewhere ?!? Since the numbers cannot be infinite... so there would
be some "numerical drift" in the universe.

IEEE 754 went WAY out of their way to make sure that rounding in FP
arithmetic had the absolute least amount of bias (that is error).

That is debatable. I can provide solid arguments for other schemes
having less - as well as a solid argument supporting its choice, of
course. Given its definition of minimum bias, I agree, but that
isn't the only one that could have been chosen.

Post by MitchAlsup
But supposeing we WERE in a universe simulation: How can you tell that
we were not paged out and put to sleep for a thousand real years a few
seconds ago?

Personally, I think that we hit a serious program bug some time ago
and are now well into undefined behaviour. This would certainly
explain quite a lot ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[MitchAlsup]

Post by Nick Maclaren
Personally, I think that we hit a serious program bug some time ago
and are now well into undefined behaviour.  This would certainly
explain quite a lot ....

Indeed....

Mitch

[Robert Myers]

Post by MitchAlsup

Post by Nick Maclaren
Personally, I think that we hit a serious program bug some time ago
and are now well into undefined behaviour.  This would certainly
explain quite a lot ....

Indeed....

Does that mean that every day, in every way, the world *isn't* getting
better, and better and better--even though the areal density of
transistors doubles every two years? :-(

Robert.

[MitchAlsup]

Post by Robert Myers
Does that mean that every day, in every way, the world *isn't* getting
better, and better and better--even though the areal density of
transistors doubles every two years?  :-(

Based on the number of people who are willfully ignorant these days,
no.

Mitch

[unknown]

Post by MitchAlsup

Post by Robert Myers
Does that mean that every day, in every way, the world *isn't* getting
better, and better and better--even though the areal density of
transistors doubles every two years? :-(

Based on the number of people who are willfully ignorant these days,
no.

Willfully ignorant seems right, particularly in the US.

I believe that there has never before in the history of the continent
been so many people who insists on closing their eyes to all scientific
evidence, just so they believe in a literal reading of some particular
Old Testament stories about the age of the Earth (& Universe?). :-(

Terje

[n***@cam.ac.uk]

Post by unknown

Post by MitchAlsup

Post by Robert Myers
Does that mean that every day, in every way, the world *isn't* getting
better, and better and better--even though the areal density of
transistors doubles every two years? :-(

Based on the number of people who are willfully ignorant these days,
no.

Willfully ignorant seems right, particularly in the US.

And in its European vassal state :-(

Post by unknown
I believe that there has never before in the history of the continent
been so many people who insists on closing their eyes to all scientific
evidence, just so they believe in a literal reading of some particular
Old Testament stories about the age of the Earth (& Universe?). :-(

Now, there you are wrong. They don't. What they believe is NOT a
literal reading (not even in their favoured translation), but a
very selected, enhanced, distorted and otherwise mangled version
of them. A different one for each sect.

Even now, I can usually demolish the average god-botherer, and
almost always demolish the bigoted ones, on the text of the Bible.
Of course, their response is what you expect ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Painius]

My dearest Mathisen,

"Terje Mathisen" <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> wrote...

Post by unknown

Post by MitchAlsup

Post by Robert Myers
Does that mean that every day, in every way, the world *isn't* getting
better, and better and better--even though the areal density of
transistors doubles every two years? :-(

Based on the number of people who are willfully ignorant these days,
no.

Willfully ignorant seems right, particularly in the US.

Not surprising. Look from where most of us were spawned.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

[Chet Weaver]

Post by unknown

Post by MitchAlsup

Post by Robert Myers
Does that mean that every day, in every way, the world *isn't* getting
better, and better and better--even though the areal density of
transistors doubles every two years? :-(

Based on the number of people who are willfully ignorant these days,
no.

Willfully ignorant seems right, particularly in the US.
I believe that there has never before in the history of the continent been
so many people who insists on closing their eyes to all scientific
evidence, just so they believe in a literal reading of some particular Old
Testament stories about the age of the Earth (& Universe?). :-(

While the numbers may have increased, I doubt the percentage has varied
much. I'd bet, even world-wide, regardless of education level, wealth, or
social status, the vast majority of people are some kind of idiot. Our
brains aren't that much different from our caveman ancestors, and we are
wired to believe all sorts of crazy things, especially things told to us by
"experts," so we don't have to spend too much time thinking and more time
doing.

[Robert Myers]

On Aug 25, 5:37 am, Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no">

Post by unknown

Post by MitchAlsup

Post by Robert Myers
Does that mean that every day, in every way, the world *isn't* getting
better, and better and better--even though the areal density of
transistors doubles every two years?  :-(

Based on the number of people who are willfully ignorant these days,
no.

Willfully ignorant seems right, particularly in the US.
I believe that there has never before in the history of the continent
been so many people who insists on closing their eyes to all scientific
evidence, just so they believe in a literal reading of some particular
Old Testament stories about the age of the Earth (& Universe?). :-(

I think it would be wrong to single out religious people.

People in every aspect of life at every conceivable level of education
believe all kinds of myths, some of them quite dangerous. Some of the
most dangerous propagators of unfounded myths are in possession of
"Nobel" prizes in economics. A truly alarming number are part of the
national security establishment of the United States. Others are
running maniacal sovereign states with consciously delusional shared
national beliefs.

To bring the discussion somewhat back on topic, I credit two things
with at least partially curing me of credulousness: learning modern
physics and working with computers. Modern physics has taught me that
the apparently unbelievable or extremely counterintuitive cannot be
dismissed out of hand. Working with computers has over and over
again persuaded me that the last hypothesis that anyone (sadly,
including me) will accept to explain puzzling results is often that
they are hanging onto some critical but incorrect and unexamined
assumption.

Robert.

[Painius]

My dearest Robert,

"Robert Myers" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message... news:987dc037-17ef-455d-a457-***@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 25, 5:37 am, Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no">

Post by unknown

Post by MitchAlsup

Post by Robert Myers
Does that mean that every day, in every way, the world *isn't* getting
better, and better and better--even though the areal density of
transistors doubles every two years? :-(

Based on the number of people who are willfully ignorant these days,
no.

Willfully ignorant seems right, particularly in the US.
I believe that there has never before in the history of the continent
been so many people who insists on closing their eyes to all scientific
evidence, just so they believe in a literal reading of some particular
Old Testament stories about the age of the Earth (& Universe?). :-(

I think it would be wrong to single out religious people.

People in every aspect of life at every conceivable level of education
believe all kinds of myths, some of them quite dangerous. Some of the
most dangerous propagators of unfounded myths are in possession of
"Nobel" prizes in economics. A truly alarming number are part of the
national security establishment of the United States. Others are
running maniacal sovereign states with consciously delusional shared
national beliefs.

To bring the discussion somewhat back on topic, I credit two things
with at least partially curing me of credulousness: learning modern
physics and working with computers. Modern physics has taught me that
the apparently unbelievable or extremely counterintuitive cannot be
dismissed out of hand. Working with computers has over and over
again persuaded me that the last hypothesis that anyone (sadly,
including me) will accept to explain puzzling results is often that
they are hanging onto some critical but incorrect and unexamined
assumption.

Robert.

P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A

Good for you Robert ! At least there is one person in this
world who seems to be on the right track. <G>

happy days and...
starry starry nights!