6 ms·
I used to believe that the world is lazily loaded. That means the first moment I see something (e.g., a world map) is the point where all the past history to co
by gfd 4y ago
I used to believe that the world is lazily loaded. That means the first moment I see something (e.g., a world map) is the point where all the past history to consistently explain the observation gets "locked in".
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y agoWhat changed?
- carlmr 4y agoThat's still lazy loading, he hasn't looked into it yet.
- KwisatzHaderack 4y agoI feel like this assumes solipsism.
- Spivak 4y agoMultiplayer solipsism. That part of the game doesn't load until at least one player observes it.
- orbz 4y agoWave function collapse in effect?
- sdwr 4y agoWas coming to say something like this. Gets to some fun conclusions - ex. paleontologists invent dinosaurs by looking for them. Another angle on it would be showing that the universe has multiple possible levels of detail - that objects behave like newtonian point masses most of the time, that digestion is replaced by a simple hunger meter when nobody's paying attention. From this direction, time's main function is compressing "now" so there's more space for something else later. I'd be willing to believe that everyone has a god-given amount of universe rendering time that can be allocated in different ways, and that other people's attention stacks with it in a complex, layered way.
- polishdude20 4y agoThat would also mean that when I don't see or hear other people, they don't "exist" as physical things that can be seen or heard until I encounter a situation in which they would be. It's the same as "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" But then again, that information has to be stored somewhere right? Like, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, sure you can say it isn't being perceived so it won't be "rendered" but the moment someone walks in the forest and sees that fallen tree, it would need to be rendered from some information about the fall and information of how it looked before the fall. That information would have to be sitting somewhere in limbo waiting to be rendered. So why not just actually let it sit IN the rendered "realm" and now you have one place for data to live in. You save on data transfer fees too.
- mywittyname 4y ago> But then again, that information has to be stored somewhere right? As a collection of probabilities stored as a wave. If a bank account has a 50% probability earning a penny every second, the bank doesn't need to store all of the intermediate values for every "clock tick", but instead calculate how much has accumulated since the last time someone checked the account and store that value with a timestamp.
- polishdude20 4y agoWhere is this wave stored though? And what is the wave made of? A wave of what?
- sdwr 4y agoThe idea is that the universe "cheats" by replacing a computationally expensive process (a tree falling, breaking into pieces, being eaten by insects, moss growing) with a series of cheaper, "good-enough" replacements, based on the level of scrutiny. Not existing is the cheapest. Then, broad strokes, location and orientation Then pieces, level of decay etc, and moving between the layers is you spending your attention budget to force the universe to do more work.
- dbtc 4y ago'the world' vs 'my world' and 'your world'
- snozolli 4y agoThat was proven not to be the case: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-n...