3 ms·
> A paper by O’Gorman et al [1] describes (p. 46) the following experiment and its results. A total of 864 modules were first run on the second floor of a two-s
by politician 8y ago
> A paper by O’Gorman et al [1] describes (p. 46) the following experiment and its results. A total of 864 modules were first run on the second floor of a two-story building for 4,671 hours, during which time, 24 soft errors were detected. Then, the same 864 modules were run for 5,863 hours in a nearby vault shielded by about 20m of rock, during which time, zero soft errors were detected.
Interesting, but there's no guarantee that time moves at the same rate both inside the simulation and outside of it -- indeed there's a good chance that the simulation runs much faster than the external environment. A 25% increase in observation time seems way too low to draw any kind of conclusion.
- optimuspaul 8y agoThere are also no guarantees that the environment outside of the simulation has anything in common with the environment inside of it. Perhaps that universe doesn't have particles at all. Maybe they are simulating this universe because they are curious about what a universe like ours would be like.
- xamuel 8y agoAssuming external-soft-error-proneness and x-x and uni-directionality, we can think of a "space" of possible simulations we might live in, thought of as quadrant 1 of an x-y plane where x represents "how many seconds pass in our simulation for each second in the real universe" and y represents "frequency with which soft errors occur in the simulating computer". Different experiments would rule out different parts of that plane with different probability.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- cgriswald 8y agoI doubt you can map the time at all. At best, you can probably make the case that the internal time of the simulation is bookended by the external start and end times of the simulation.