4 ms·

I think I am the only one who think humans will never manage to build something that complex. Come on: (1) We still have to use humans for motion capture in or

I think I am the only one who think humans will never manage to build something that complex. Come on: (1) We still have to use humans for motion capture in order to make 3d realistic. (2) We still haven't come up with an IA to chat with. (3) We still haven't figure out what's the smallest unit in the matter, if matter is a thing.

Udo 12y ago
> I think I am the only one who think humans will never manage to build something that complex. The universe is impossibly large, but it's not fundamentally complex. All complexity is emergent, not built in. The universe may very well run on a few very simple rules of data transformation, like a collection of cellular automata. I don't think any physicist would argue in favor of the universe's complexity in connection with the simulation idea. In my opinion a better implausibility argument could instead be constructed from the enormous size and the apparent wastefulness of calculating every single simulation tick (which may well be equal to Planck time).
BinaryIdiot 12y ago
The reason you're the only one who thinks we can't is because you're limiting the possibility of building something like that with todays technology. 1. I'm not sure this is the case anymore but it certainly makes things easier. Regardless, why do you think 3d motion can't improve? 2. We have some but nothing that is a true AI. Many AI experts think a true AI, most likely modeled after the human brain once better understood, is going to happen in the next 50-100 years [from last I read, I am certainly no expert]. Why do you think this can't happen when most seem to think it eventually will? 3. Every year science makes progress to test, image and discover things that are very small. Right now string theory is a possibility that strings may be smaller than atoms. Why do you think this cannot or will not be either proven or disproven, ever?
egypturnash 12y ago
Ah, but how do you know you're not just used to a pale shadow of what REAL motion is outside of the simulation? hits the bong again

Udo 12y ago

> I think I am the only one who think humans will never manage to build something that complex. The universe is impossibly large, but it's not fundamentally complex. All complexity is emergent, not built in. The universe may very well run on a few very simple rules of data transformation, like a collection of cellular automata. I don't think any physicist would argue in favor of the universe's complexity in connection with the simulation idea. In my opinion a better implausibility argument could instead be constructed from the enormous size and the apparent wastefulness of calculating every single simulation tick (which may well be equal to Planck time).

BinaryIdiot 12y ago

The reason you're the only one who thinks we can't is because you're limiting the possibility of building something like that with todays technology. 1. I'm not sure this is the case anymore but it certainly makes things easier. Regardless, why do you think 3d motion can't improve? 2. We have some but nothing that is a true AI. Many AI experts think a true AI, most likely modeled after the human brain once better understood, is going to happen in the next 50-100 years [from last I read, I am certainly no expert]. Why do you think this can't happen when most seem to think it eventually will? 3. Every year science makes progress to test, image and discover things that are very small. Right now string theory is a possibility that strings may be smaller than atoms. Why do you think this cannot or will not be either proven or disproven, ever?

egypturnash 12y ago

Ah, but how do you know you're not just used to a pale shadow of what REAL motion is outside of the simulation? hits the bong again