|
Yeah, the best/only way to simulate a universe is to construct said universe. Far easier to only simulate the bits you're interested in at the fine level and fudge the rest.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
BastardySkull posted:Surely you would hit a wall where you would have to use all the matter in the entire universe to simulate all the matter in a universe or some poo poo like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Honestly, seeing how "easy" it is for one man to create something like this, the idea that you would just procedurally generate things down to the subatomic level as needed, and not when not needed, it no longer seems outside the realm of possibility. Two or three centuries of procedural software development could probably create a universe much more detailed than our own (sub-sub-sub quark particles, etc) You run up against hard, physical limits on how much you can compute using finite space and energy given our current understanding of the laws of physics. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908043 But on the positive end of things you have theories like Tipler's Omega Point and we're ultimately pretty ignorant about a lot of things so who knows!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
Also the problem would be to save the state of (almost) every object. The persistence is the hard part. To prevent that you can make it hard to craft persistent objects, or limit the amount of persistent object each user can have, but then it makes the game unfun or 'unrealistic.'
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
This is pretty cool, and the perfect space wallpaper maker. Put on some ambient music like Brian Eno's Apollo album and have magical journey through space, at least until it crashes. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
BastardySkull posted:edit: like, they can't even properly simulate subatomic stuff accurately enough to truly predict that something does or doesn't exist. Even when they do physical tests they only say that something has a 'probability' of existing. Just a note that this is not a simulation accuracy problem. This is how the universe really works at that scale, to the best of our current scientific understanding, although "existence" is not really a probabilistic value. Existence at a certain location, or with a certain energy, or spin, etc, etc are the probabilistic ones. Knowing the initial state to "perfect accuracy" (whatever that might mean) does not change this. Even the simplest quantum mechanical examples, with few independent variables and a fixed initial state, exhibit this behavior.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Or our most informed guess based on what we can observe happening on that scale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
As far as quantum mechanics can tell, all particles fundamentally exist as a probability wave that describes the likelyhood of various characteristics resulting on further interactions with other elements. We exploit that effect in our early quantum computing experiments. It demonstrably exists, it's not just a result of our limitations. Classical computers can simulate this; quantum mechanics is Turing compatible, it'd just be really slow. And there's a random element to any interaction, so it'd never be the same twice. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
This thread has become really interesting out of nowhere and I approve; I've updated the OP with a link to the donation page for SpaceEngine and linked the HD No Man's Sky trailer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Furism posted:Also the problem would be to save the state of (almost) every object. The persistence is the hard part. To prevent that you can make it hard to craft persistent objects, or limit the amount of persistent object each user can have, but then it makes the game unfun or 'unrealistic.' You'd only need to save the persistence of generally perceivable objects for, in general 100 years at a very coarse level (recliner is in that corner of the room, and it's brown), probably 30 days in most cases (I thought I left my keys in this drawer? Where did that other sock go?). It's not like we regularly scan every square inch of the earth with an electron microscope and compare the results against eachother. You'd only need to simulate sub-sub-sub quarks for a tiny sliver of a fraction of a percent of the population who have the instruments to view them, etc. It wouldn't shock me to see the same kind of improvements with this software in 200 years the same way Wolfenstein 3D looks compared to Battlefield 4. Programmers learn new ideas every day to trick the eye and brain in to simulating a believable world, even if it is mostly static. TL;DR just because flipping a light switch makes the light come on doesn't mean that you need to simulate the electron flow at a subatomic level going through the wires or even the exact voltage through the bulb, etc. Hadlock fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:In another 10 years or so, we'll finally hit the singularity where we can procedurally create a universe that's indistinguishable from reality And given that the probability of such a simulation existing approaches 1 with the advancement of technology, so does the probability that we're already experiencing existence through such a simulation, perhaps even a simulation within a simulation, and so on. Universe 2k13. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
SplitSoul posted:And given that the probability of such a simulation existing approaches 1 with the advancement of technology, so does the probability that we're already experiencing existence through such a simulation, perhaps even a simulation within a simulation, and so on. Universe 2k13. GENESIS.TXT posted:Insert Floppy Disk One out of Seven." The Lord said unto his cyber angels. And thusly Floppy Disk One out of Seven was inserted with a mighty clack of the divine drive head snapping into place. Black holes are bad sectors. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Geemer posted:Black holes are bad sectors. Nah, they're just INT overflows. Dark Matter is someone messing up the large-scale gravity approximation algorithm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Nah, they're just INT overflows. Funnily enough, superstring theory does describe a process that looks a bit like a variable overflow, as in that a very large string wrapping around a very small space will have the same effects on it as if the space would be huge (like ours) and the string very, very small. That's just my pop-sci understanding from reading books like The Fabric of the Cosmos though, don't take my word for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
SplitSoul posted:And given that the probability of such a simulation existing approaches 1 with the advancement of technology, so does the probability that we're already experiencing existence through such a simulation, perhaps even a simulation within a simulation, and so on. Universe 2k13. Name dropping Bostrom, because the dude is bad rear end. http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
Shab posted:Name dropping Bostrom, because the dude is bad rear end. It's an interesting argument but I doubt it's possible even in principle to simulate General Relativity, though I specifically looked to see if anybody had anything to say about that and couldn't find anything. Basically, I imagine you'd have to either simulate a privileged reference frame, something General Relativity says can't exist, or you'd have to simulate arbitrarily large number of reference frames, which would mean simulating the entire universe for every observer and keeping things consistent between them. I'm hardly an expert on simulation or relativity though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Abyssal Squid posted:It's an interesting argument but I doubt it's possible even in principle to simulate General Relativity, http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/ Before you ask about the prismatic effects, that's red shift happening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu7jA8EHi_0 Hadlock fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/ That's really cool, but that's not exactly what I'm talking about. When you have one observer (the player) it's simple enough to make the player's reference frame privileged and apply relativity. It gets harder when you have multiple observers, and I doubt it's possible with an arbitrarily large number of observers. Then again, we've only had a few hundred or thousand reference frames detectably different from Earth's so far, so maybe when the universe is swarming with von Neumann machines or whatever the simulation starts to crap out? Still, that game looks really cool and I'm gonna check it out. Edit: it runs at 10 fps on my laptop, so I can't tell what's a relativistic effect and what's just poor performance. 
Abyssal Squid fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
I don't really get what you're trying to say about reference frames. The fact that every perspective in a simulation would have to be rendered is not unique to simulations of general relativity. Just imagine if we had to simulate the world in terms of gallilean relativity. There are still no privileged frames of reference, but we still don't need to do any massively complex computations in order to make a simulation of the physics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
 SpaceEngine 0.9.7.1 Released!Download here Partial Changelog: quote:Major updates: I don't see Rift support though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
This new build is rock solid  Even at LOD 2 and heavy time acceleration, it just wouldn't crash. Also, yay spaceships?  (those panels/radiators are so bad)
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
seravid posted:This new build is rock solid I got a crash within about 10 minutes, new build is really cool otherwise though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
GuardianOfAsgaard posted:I got a crash within about 10 minutes, new build is really cool otherwise though. Ah, well that sucks. Were you doing anything in particular?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Well hot drat, I legit expected this guy wouldn't do a drat thing more with the program until and unless he hit his funding goal. It's a (very welcome and not at all unappreciated) Christmas miracle!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
I can get this thing to crash ever 1-3 minutes           
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 09:24
|
|
|
seravid posted:Ah, well that sucks. Were you doing anything in particular? Actually now that I think about it I did fly a spaceship into a planet's surface at several thousand km/s, so can't really complain!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
Wow, high-detail terrain loads much faster now. Found a cool double-planet, one terra and one desert, each with life, and it only took about 10 seconds for it to load all this on my three-year-old computer. I think the actual planet creation algorithm might've been improved, too, because I've never gotten mountains and craters as clearly-defined as those before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
        
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Black hole binary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
 240 km across, semi-major axis of 7650 km, orbital period of two and a half hours.  Even on 1x speed, you could see it visibly moving with just a quick glance. It made me kind of uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
This build is really drat stable and gorgeous, even the music is enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
You can build your own ship! http://en.spaceengine.org/forum/17-1292-1
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
SplitSoul posted:You can build your own ship! Call my a cynic, but unless whatever ship you build is as maneuverable as the current massless camera that tops out at several orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light, this is kind of a useless feature. Even if the ship could reach c it would still render the game impossibly boring if that's all it could do. Even being able to seamlessly switch between massless camera and ship would be pretty pointless. Allow the ship to move as fast and freely as we currently can, and let it land on planets so the player can exit it while wearing a space suit and walk around on planetary surfaces and I'll be all for it though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
GreatGreen posted:Call my a cynic, but unless whatever ship you build is as maneuverable as the current massless camera that tops out at several orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light, this is kind of a useless feature. Even if the ship could reach c it would still render the game impossibly boring if that's all it could do. Even being able to seamlessly switch between massless camera and ship would be pretty pointless. Yeah, I've never even considered the ships for anything more than screenshots. Also, am I blind, or is there really no way to delete modules in that editor? Edit: Apparently, yes. Ctrl+LMB.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
In the last version you could hold the middle mouse button and push your mouse forward and back to zoom in and out, but it doesn't do that any more. Any way to get that back? Because holding page up and page down is really slow and awkward in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
You can still zoom by clicking mouse click and it'll zoom to a set distance, but I would assume if you set zoom in/out to the mouse wheel you'll get the same effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
GuardianOfAsgaard posted:In the last version you could hold the middle mouse button and push your mouse forward and back to zoom in and out, but it doesn't do that any more. Any way to get that back? Because holding page up and page down is really slow and awkward in comparison. Hold shift and left-click drag to set a zoom point (the game calls it 'telescope') and then middle mouse click will swap between standard fov and your zoom point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
SpaceEngine is on Steam Greenlight, so vote for it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Sire Oblivion posted:SpaceEngine is on Steam Greenlight, so vote for it! Voted, and everyone else should too - getting more attention for this software can only be a good thing, perhaps someone in the right place will see it's potential and make something of it (beyond what just one guy can do on his own, I mean).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
Sire Oblivion posted:SpaceEngine is on Steam Greenlight, so vote for it! This
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 01:28
|
|