So when will virtual reality become reality? I don't mean

you're
living in one

Mind = blown

>>51588614
wow!

I'd say about 2050ish?

>>51588741
That's optimistic as hell, I think we're talking centuries.

>>51588614
There are several ways we can prove to an extent that we don't live in a matrix-type simulation. For example, non-discrete mathematical structures.

>>51588790
Elaborate on said structures?

>>51588149
Seeing as bionic ears and eyes are a thing, and prosthetics with haptic feedback are there or thereabouts a thing I fail to see why people are even bothering with occulus. If we can tap into the senses and nervous system now, its only a matter of time before we could have HDMI ports in our scones.

>>51588790
Yeah, you're right. There is a lot to it.
Scientists are beginning to start working on things such as direct stimulation of optic nerve or however you say it, but this is a long long way off from getting the full experience... tactile, sound, vision, smell, taste etc.

Maybe 2100? kek

It's hard to say. The creation of artificial intelligence in the next decade or two could drastically change things so quickly that we get there in a matter of decades... Or, it might not.

Imagine an intelligence far smarter than all of our greatest scientists right now, with virtually unlimited capacity to recall memory, and the ability to perform repetitive or complex tasks at billions of times the speed of a regular person. If this became a reality, then who is to say what the fuck it might invent/do.
le kek

>>51588867
quoted the wrong person
>>51588779

>>51588804
Certain structures in which our physical universe is deeply rooted are non-discrete, and therefore not storable within a finite space. For example the square root of 5 (an irrational number).

The matrix is real

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCcsI_AZ9A

Given that the universe has a minimum scale ( Planck length ) the universe has a set resolution, or a minimum scale.

Given that the universe has a maximum speed limit ( c ) we can calculate the maximum rate of information propagation from one Plank point to the next.

The universe has a frame rate.

>>51588918
Can you prove that the "structures" that use the square root of 5 aren't using an approximation?

And what's stopping our universe from being simulated within a universe with infinite space?

Such a virtual reality would be run by corporations like Facebook (who are already in charge of the a large portion of this emerging technology). They would control what you sense, read every thought and log every action. You would be doing no less than selling them your soul.

>>51588958
There's ANOTHER black science man??

File: 1392435062085.jpg (59KB, 350x443px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 350x443px

>>51588614
Hell is when they confront you with all that "data" they collected on you. You go on a wild torturous mindfuck ride being exposed to what fucking piece of shit of a person you have been, and you can't look away. Like a bad drug trip, but never ends and deliberately orchestrated. All those times you thought you were alone were recorded. All those thoughts you had are logged. All those experiences you had were part of a test to see how you functioned. God is a machine and has no heart. He will present the errors.

>>51588981
Different anon here.
Sylvester James Gates is the only real black science man. Basically his entire life is mathematics so complex that only a handful of people in the world are his peer.

>>51588918
What proof do we have that they are non-discrete and not just very very small incomprehensible increments?

Also just because we currently lack the knowledge to represent these things computationally doesn't mean it isn't possible

>>51588918
The level of technology we have -now- is capable of some pretty amazing accuracy in regards to irrational numbers. I don't think you need more than several trillion digits of pi to simulate a perfect sphere.

>>51588963
> Can you prove that the "structures" that use the square root of 5 aren't using an approximation?

I don't know what you mean. By non-discrete structures, I meant any mathematical object which is infinite in some regard, effectively containing infinite information.

> And what's stopping our universe from being simulated within a universe with infinite space?
Are the properties of the outer universe identical to our universe? It boils down to: what is the defining characteristic of "simulation"?

>>51588966
(c) is not a maximum speed. It's an unachievable speed for massive objects.

>>51589066
>(c) is not a maximum speed. It's an unachievable speed for massive objects.

And "massless" particles are unable to exceed that speed. Bits of data are unable to propagate faster than a given rate.

I don't think the question is are we in a simulation rather than things like...

What does "simulation" actually mean in this context? How could it NOT be a simulation.

Also, does it even matter?

Anyone see that episode of Rick and Morty with all the simulated realities? Jesus that was hilarious when the simluation started running out of computing power and glitching up. Also "now, here's... human music"

>>51588918
Bullshit. Actually, it's almost the reverse.
Much of our universe is quantized to discrete units, perhaps the most prevalent being the energy of (at least most?) particles. Also, if we would think about how to ease a simulation, something like heisenberg realtion comes to mind.
As for your claim about sqrt(5), nothing fundamental prevents us from simulating beings with a concept like sqrt(5) in their minds with discrete logic. Ffs, we can calculate the value to arbitrary precision using our own discrete logic computers.
As for your notion for the universe needing to have a property for its inhabitants to have that property as a concept, well, that's laughable. Or do you think it's impossible for us to think about four-dimensional spaces because we seemingly inhabit a three-dimensional one?

>>51588918
The square root of 5 does not have to be represented in it's entirety to make use of it. Conceptually and it can be stored and approximated with only a small amount of data.

Reality is a very subjective thing. We already live in a simulation. Your brain has and will always be in the dark of a sealed cavity.

"The image of the world around us, which we carry in our head, is just a model. Nobody in his head imagines all the world, government or country. He has only selected concepts, and relationships between them, and uses those to represent the real system." - Jay Wright Forrester

>>51589115
>Also, does it even matter?

Ever see the film The Thirteenth Floor? The matrix films even referenced it.

It matters if we can escape our simulation into the simulation above ours.

>>51589156
Oh wow, so even if this were real each person lives in his own universe where they're the center of everything

>>51589180
Or worse, there is no such thing as another consciousness, yours is the only one that exists.

"I think, therefore I am" has an additional observation that, since you cannot prove any thought other than yours is real, you will never know if the universe and all of us replying to you are real, or we're just in your head.

At the most, you know only you exist.

>>51589156
Yes, exactly. This raises another important point.

You cannot ask what the true nature of any aspect of reality is, because the question itself does not make sense. In order for anything to be perceived or viewed it must pass through the filters of a brains.

This reminds me of something else quite interesting. Anyone here had a heavy dose of lsd or similar before? The pure expansion of the range of experiences is astounding and unlike anything you could imagine prior to taking the drug. One day this could possibly be replicated by technology, allowing us to experience other forms of existence and dimensions which are unimaginable from the base-line reference point of everyday life. Not only could VR technology project worlds onto our existing way of experiencing, but eventually propel us into different experiences altogether. Will be a pretty interesting time to be alive if it ever happens, that's for sure.

>>51589242
DUDE DRUGS LMAO

>>51589180
More like the universe that you see is not necessarily the university that really is there, as all of the information you get is always filtered through your senses and is subject to a hell of a lot of processing. I mean, when you look at a chair, it's not that you magically sense that chair to be there, more like you tell yourself that you see the object "chair" that your visual cortex has processed from the pre-processed signals your retina has sent in response to photons hitting it.

>>51589165
>tfw the simluation shits itself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI0_GrzgdYg

That movie sounds interesting, will look into it.

>>51589242
Never tried lsd, but did mushrooms once. It was a very enlightening experience. I too think that VR may hold a very exciting future for man. Think of it as a controlled hallucinogenic experience.

>>51589054
>>51589021
>>51589145
>>51589120
Simulate a universe containing new mathematical structures which, which calculated, produces a random and disjunctive sequence, without extending anything from our universe.

You can't.

>>51589264
I know right.

>>51589278
Similar enough, they act on the same receptors on the brain if I recall correctly.

Yeah, it would be nice to be able to have a psychedelic experience where you can adjust the strength of it on the fly. lol

>>51589295
Sorry, but you've lost me :/

>>51589270
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81z-6mzEB6s

File: impossible.gif (2MB, 400x167px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x167px

>>51588614

>>51589295
You're assuming the entire universe is simulated at once.

The parts that aren't directly observed are optimized for efficiency at a lesser fidelity. We can already perform experiments to demonstrate differences in physics when something is observed vs not observed. See: collapsing the wave function.

File: morpheus.jpg (84KB, 960x544px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 960x544px

>>51588149

>>51589369
>the universe has LOD

whoa

>>51589369
Couldn't you also could argue the opposite?
Given that all possibilities exist in a superposition until observation occurs, then this potentially requires MORE computation, not less, because parallel possibilities are all being calculated simultaneously.

Given we don't know what kind of cpu/gpu architectures the universe is being run on, maybe it could go either way. kek

File: 1436347369844.gif (476KB, 188x174px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 188x174px

>My mind when Neo rearranged = One

>>51589424
I suppose simulating an approximated wave function is probably easier than specific pathways, especially if you had a quantum computer.
I'm just talking out of my ass by now.

>>51589424

Yeah what this guy said >>51589442

I'm thinking something along the lines of calculating a potential for a wave, vs ray tracing every single particle.

>>51589442
Don't worry , everybody is talking out of their asses here since everyone is a clueless neet, but its fun to pretend.

>>51589461
Yeah, sometimes I forget that and my mind tells me that these mysterious 4chan people are experts.
kek

>>51588958
Very interesting!

>>51589485
>>51589461
I'm a mathematics grad student, and the things I was saying about irrational numbers is not an uncommon point.

I'm not sure what the anons spouting random quantum physics concepts in response are talking about.

>>51589427
Imdb/Thematrix/trivia

>>51589509
Well it all does kind of relate. It is a similar concept to this continuous vs discrete idea.

>>51589295
I'm having trouble understanding your requirements. By mathematical structures, do you mean things like fields? Or axioms? Or groups of numbers like real numbers and stuff? With sequence, do you mean a sequence of numbers? Is it enough for me to provide you with a group of numbers not physically present in this universe?
Since complex numbers are a pretty good candidate for something you can't visualize in the same sense. You can't have i apples. And even when you can calculate things using them, when you actually measure things, the complex component is not actually there.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Theoretical mathematicians are constantly coming up with even weirder and esoteric structures completely devoid of any connection to reality.
I think you are confused with the consept of math. It's a tool created by humans, based on certain semi-arbitrary axioms chosen because things "just werk". There's no math without the mathematician.

>>51589509
What did I say wrong? Its always students that think they know shit so they spill their pseudoscientific bullshit because they think they are entitled to. Do a research for about 20 years in some particular field.
God I hate students that think they are already scientists because they do some academia useless bullshit.

Brb programming the matrix
>what language should I use?

>>51589572
haskell it is le most superior

>>51589543
>There's no math without the mathematician.
I disagree. A lot of it seems to be just as fundamental logical concepts which "just are" and exist regardless of any form of time, space, matter or human.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this question, just opinions and viewpoints.

>>51589572
PHP

Die pls?

>>51588867
>Imagine an intelligence far smarter than all of our greatest scientists right now, with virtually unlimited capacity to recall memory, and the ability to perform repetitive or complex tasks at billions of times the speed of a regular person.

Well that is much farther away than VR, so.. If you believe in the Ai singularity meme you're misinformed..

>>51589563
To be fair, in a field such as mathematics, academia IS the core of the field.
Something like engineering however, I can see how your point could be valid.

Hollywood : The thread

>>51589607
What in your view is the reason or reasons why we will not have an AI singularity?

>>51589626
Because java is fucking slow

>>51589607
What if the AI singularity doesn't use 74' series logic gates as a core, but is instead biological?

>>51589634
>not writing your AI in machine code
Pleb

>>51589645
Does an artificial brain that physically works the same as a human brain even count as "biological"?
Kek

>>51589645
If it's biological, then is it really /artificial/ intelligence?

>>51589543
It's not about the weirdness of the structure you invent. It's about the fact that we can't simulate infinite complexity.

>>51589563
I don't see how what I said has anything to do with optimization and wave function collapse.

>>51589645
>What if
Stopped reading there

>>51589673
Good point... I guess you would have to drop the "artificial" qualifier for the singularity. Personally, I think the future of new forms of intelligence will be brains grown on substrates that interface electrically to peripherals.

>>51589682
>It's about the fact that we can't simulate infinite complexity.

You don't have to. You only need to simulate up to what the simulation needs.

>I don't see how what I said has anything to do with optimization and wave function collapse.

The point was the universe behaves differently when we are not looking. Why would a simulation do differently?

File: 1441712527306.jpg (33KB, 670x1192px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 670x1192px

>>51589700
Mister I think you dropped something

>>51589715
>You don't have to. You only need to simulate up to what the simulation needs.
My argument is rooted in the very idea that some mathematical objects are infinite and non-repeating. That wouldn't be the case if such objects were generated PRN.

>>51589700
Yeah, sounds plausible.
At the same time, sometimes I think we should just stop inventing this shit. We could be headed for disaster. kek

>>51589586
With your second point I agree, a "right" answer is not something at least I can find.
However, I argue that there are no fundamental logical concepts that are universally true. There are any number of different axiomatic systems in the world capable of proving for example a NAND operation (Nicod's and Argonne's, for example), but none of those are provable by themselves, i.e. they are not universally valid (if I have understood correctly). So I choose not to believe in universal, time and space-transcending math without an answer to Hilbert's 2nd problem.

>>51589788
As a concept, sure, irrationals are infinite.

In practice? The simulation only needs to provide a number large enough to satisfy the demands of the simulation.

After several trillion or so digits, at the scale of our own universe as we know it, the difference in any mathematical constant between it's truncated value and real (haha) value would be unnoticeable.

>>51589626
I believe the task of a system optimising itself is hard enough to act as a singularity deterrent. True, it might be possible, but under the current evidence it very much seems to be improbable

>>51589682
There's no evidence of our universe manifesting infinite complexity

>>51589862
People can work out how to optimize stuff, so why not an AI?

>>51589726
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w41gH6x_30

>>51589626
>What in your view is the reason or reasons why we will not have an AI singularity?

Mores law is dead.

>>51589374
Underrated post.

>>51589839
I'm not talking about *using* the number in calculations for the simulation. I mean that I, as a person within the universe, can use the rules of mathematics, which are true to this universe, to compute an infinite amount of unique, random, non-repeating information.

>>51589875
Some math structures are infinitely complex, i.e., disjunctive numbers

>>51589955
We will still keep progressing. The pace is just slowing. Quantum computing isn't far off, for example. Fuck knows what that could mean

>>51589991
>Fuck knows what that could mean

Not what you think. It will not mean anything to Ai or traditional computing, it just doesn't work like that and never will. And traditional computing have a lower theoretical limit, dictated by physics that can't be worked around unless we discover something wrong with out current understanding of physics.

>>51589884
Since the system is so complex it takes a lot of effort (=computation+time) to optimise systems like post/human intelligences. The very notion of singularities is based on the thought that for sufficiently developed intelligences, this becomes easy as pie and the intelligence looks at its architecture, says " yeah, this here is why I'm so stupid", fixes that and creates a vastly greater intellect. Then we just rinse and repeat and machine overlord is your uncle.
My point is that for complex systems like intelligences, the problem is not that easy and the upgrading of this intelligence is slow, resulting not in a singularity but a slow creation of very intelligent machines. If the problem has diminishing returns, we might not even get too intelligent machines. We might even survive this century if we're lucky.

>>51590033
our*

>>51590040
The important distinction to make is that the computer has the capability to try out more variations and ideas at a hugely faster pace than a human could? :/

>>51590323
Yes, but that already assumes we have the means for the ai to do that (computational resources). But I think I see our point of disagreement.
I think that the problem of enhancing intelligence is so complex that even with vast resources and an already great intellect, we won't see a harsh singularity.
You think that with enough resources and a bit of post-human cleverness we're going to have the intelligence feedback loop of singularity.
Since neither of us have evidence to one direction or another, I'm content with this.

>>51588918
>>51589021
I called Wildberger and he says he's gonna come and "smash his [your] ass all the way to infinity", you stupid little bitch.

>>51588982
So does that mean humanity is botnet?

>>51591182
DING DING DING

>>51588918
"Square root of 5" is a product of our imagination.
It has nothing to do with our physical universe.

what CPU to run the universe at smooth 120 fps

>>51591426
strings are running it fine at 10^43/fps