Random Thoughts and Ideas (PT3!)

N

NPT

Guest
Were you replying to anyone here?
No.

I'm pretty consistant about quoting what I'm replying to. The only time I don't is when I'm replying directly after somebody.



Can't you just believe in a god and his idea without imitating the other people who believe in the same thing?
The reason almost everybody believes in a god is because everyone else in their social/family/cultural groups believe.
 

roytheshort

The Village Idiot
I want to put VIVEs on people when they sleep and make them simulate their lives, then on April the first next year I remove it and show them they've been in a room walking into walls for just under a year.
 

GVmG

Raechel
We're going too deep.

It remembers me of that theory about humanity reaching the singularity and our thoughts and minds working together to figure out the answer to life in a matter of milliseconds. As soon as we accomplish that, we realize that now our existence is useless, so we have two choices: 1. we just suicide, because after all we have nothing else to do in the universe and 2. we start making something to do.

Despite the first option being the most depressing one, the second one is the trippy one. With enough processing power to figure out the answer to everything in a matter of milliseconds, simulating an universe similar to our own shouldn't be a problem. So in our singularity, we start that. And eventually that universe grows and expands and another intelligent life form appears. We're still ignoring our universe (of which we already know everything) and focusing on just observing the simulated universe we have created.

After a bit, that new intelligent life form that we're simulating will also reach their singularity. At that point they will have the same choice, suicide or find something else to do. And the cicle will repeat.

But if it's a cicle, that means we are also in a simulated universe created by a singularity, and that singularity is in a simulated uiverse created by yet another singularity in yet another simulated univ-

Yeah. It's almost as bad as that time I took the multiverse theory and added macaroni to it.
 

GVmG

Raechel
Have you never heard of partying?
What would the reason of partying be? We would be all a single entity with such a powerful "mind" that emotions, luck, fun, partying, anything, would be useless. Since we have nothing else to do in our universe, we are presented with the choice to a. stop existing (aka "suiciding") or b. create a new universe.
 

roytheshort

The Village Idiot
How can you even begin to imagine what being a single entity would entail? There's so many unknowns you can't even begin to guess! Also, partying never has a reason anyway.
 

GVmG

Raechel
The point is not the "single mind", or the singularity itself. The point is reaching a status where we know everything about our universe just by thinking about it.

At that point, our universe becomes "boring" since there's never anything new.
 

GVmG

Raechel
Partying would be useless. As everything with no reason. When you're fueled by the will to discover stuff, like that singularity, you don't care about other stuff. You care about discovering things. And when you finally discovered everything that exists, what else is there if not to make something new?
 
The point is reaching a status where we know everything about our universe just by thinking about it.

At that point, our universe becomes "boring" since there's never anything new.
Is knowing everything about the universe the same as knowing every possibility that could happen within a universe to the point that there is nothing new?
 

GVmG

Raechel
Is knowing everything about the universe the same as knowing every possibility that could happen within a universe to the point that there is nothing new?
That is the hypothesis I'm posing. If that ever happens, to the point where nothing new could not be calculated in a matter of nanoseconds, then we only have those two choices.

Also this originates from a creepypasta, don't take it too seriously :p
 

roytheshort

The Village Idiot
That is the hypothesis I'm posing. If that ever happens, to the point where nothing new could not be calculated in a matter of nanoseconds, then we only have those two choices.
If you know everything that will happen, you will also know what your smaller universe contains because it follows the rules of your universe, and you'll know what will happen when you die.
 
to the point where nothing new could not be calculated in a matter of nanoseconds
I think my Intel quad core is pretty close to the minimum requirements for such a feat. Maybe in a few months the new generation CPU architectures can handle it. Fingers crossed
/s
 

GVmG

Raechel
If you know everything that will happen, you will also know what your smaller universe contains because it follows the rules of your universe, and you'll know what will happen when you die.
Knowing everything of the universe you're in is unrelated to what will happen when you simulate another universe with your "singularity mind", because they're literally two different universes.

I think my Intel quad core is pretty close to the minimum requirements for such a feat. Maybe in a few months the new generation CPU architectures can handle it. Fingers crossed
/s
lol yeah and AMD will also provide CPUs that overheat, so that the heat death of said simulated universe will never happen.
 

GVmG

Raechel
But your mind is in the Universe.
You keep thinking about the universe you're in, but not the one you're imagining. Sitting back and relaxing while watching what your simulation becomes is not the same as watching this universe grow. It is not said that things will "evolve" into atoms and planets and living forms. It might become something different. It might have its own laws of physics. the possibilities are endless.

Neither of the universes is in each other. I would explain this using one of the sides of my Macaroni Theory, but it'd just make this look ridiculous (the name itself is enough) even though it turned out to be a serious theory somehow.

But basically, The second universe is not simulated in its entire "lifespan". The singularity will only "start this simulation". Then it will go on on its own. The singularity will not interfere with it, and it will eventually become another "universe". As a set of information in the singularity's "mind", this new "simulated universe" is in fact an universe on its own (since the most generic definition I can give you of an universe in my theory is that an universe is "a set of information controlled by laws that bound these information together").

EDIT: let's be cleare: reaching the status I'm imagining, the "singularity" itself isn't in the universe. It is, instead, the universe itself, since it knows everything regarding it. It's a copy of the universe "in" the universe. Physical positions in this have no real meaning.
 
Last edited:

ElectroMan

Jack of All Shades
It remembers me of that theory about humanity reaching the singularity and our thoughts and minds working together to figure out the answer to life in a matter of milliseconds. As soon as we accomplish that, we realize that now our existence is useless, so we have two choices
Aside from the blatant false dichotomy, the premise per se is meaningless. "Answer to life" is a recursive problem. That means the answer to it is contained to all possible futures you may have and the only solution to it would be a self-consistent one (for example of a self-consistent solution check out Novikov's principle). This removes all difficulties afterwards because whatever you do is already consistent with the behaviour included in calculating the (vaguely defined) "answer to life."
 

GVmG

Raechel
Aside from the blatant false dichotomy, the premise per se is meaningless. "Answer to life" is a recursive problem. That means the answer to it is contained to all possible futures you may have and the only solution to it would be a self-consistent one (for example of a self-consistent solution check out Novikov's principle). This removes all difficulties afterwards because whatever you do is already consistent with the behaviour included in calculating the (vaguely defined) "answer to life."
All of the things I talked about were simplified extremely for the sake of not spamming the topic with random information that barely anyone would understand anyway.

The idea is that the "singularity" is capable of knowing whatever will happen in whatever moment whenever it wants, for the events of its universe. Once it can do that, there really is no meaning to it's "life". It will know everything just by thinking about it, and it won't need this information anymore. Staying focused on the universe you know is like rewatching the same movie a lot of times consecutively: it gets boring.

This of course is a generalization with our feelings and sentiments (boredom in this case). The singularity would just not be interested in its universe anymore because it knows it perfectly. And the objective, the point, of the singularity itself, is to find out new things about the universe. If this point is reached, the singularity has "nothing else to do". Eventually it'll have the choice I talked about.
 

ElectroMan

Jack of All Shades
All of the things I talked about were simplified extremely for the sake of not spamming the topic with random information that barely anyone would understand anyway.
Why, aren't we feeling pretentious?

The idea is that the "singularity" is capable of knowing whatever will happen in whatever moment whenever it wants, for the events of its universe. Once it can do that, there really is no meaning to it's "life". It will know everything just by thinking about it, and it won't need this information anymore. Staying focused on the universe you know is like rewatching the same movie a lot of times consecutively: it gets boring.
Alright, since my point obviously didn't go through I'll repeat it in a simpler way. When you do calculations about an overall concept that encompasses past present and future such as what is "the meaning of life," you run into problems as you described if you don't understand that it's a recursive problem. Recursion means that it's a function that feeds itself into it in order to obtain a (sometimes) convergent solution. However this singularity is built, obviously if it's going to do its job well enough it's going to also iterate all future events into this solution.

If the solution to the "meaning of life" renders it useless, as you described, then it isn't a good machine and it just made a mistake. We'll assume this machine is perfect and doesn't get errors. So that scenario is now impossible. How? A self-consistent solution. A solution in which it itself is a factor in the calculation, which means that the fact of conveying to the machine what its purpose is, will still be itself a factor in determining the solution. And the "meaning of life" will be correct and will not lead to your nihilistic conclusion.

The problem that arises, the way I see it, is proving that such a solution exists since not all recursive problems converge to a single or a finite set of values. Anyway, this comic seems relevant now.
 

GVmG

Raechel
Why, aren't we feeling pretentious?
This might sound pretentious, yes, but what I meant is that people here don't know the details of my "macaroni theory". You'll see what I mean later.

Alright, since my point obviously didn't go through I'll repeat it in a simpler way. When you do calculations about an overall concept that encompasses past present and future such as what is "the meaning of life," you run into problems as you described if you don't understand that it's a recursive problem. Recursion means that it's a function that feeds itself into it in order to obtain a (sometimes) convergent solution. However this singularity is built, obviously if it's going to do its job well enough it's going to also iterate all future events into this solution.
I know what a recursive problem is. But as I said, I tried to explain the concepts of my theory as simply as I could, and it didn't work. Past, Present and Future don't have an exact meaning in my theory, since different timelines can "behave" in different ways in an infinitely-dimensional time. I'm not going to explain what I mean with that since it's a pain and as I already stated, it'd take a lot of space. Just know that present, future, and past, are your point of view from your position in a certain timestring (different timestrings compose a timeline). That is as simply as I can put it without spamming this topic with text.

If the solution to the "meaning of life" renders it useless, as you described, then it isn't a good machine and it just made a mistake. We'll assume this machine is perfect and doesn't get errors. So that scenario is now impossible. How? A self-consistent solution. A solution in which it itself is a factor in the calculation, which means that the fact of conveying to the machine what its purpose is, will still be itself a factor in determining the solution. And the "meaning of life" will be correct and will not lead to your nihilistic conclusion.
Okay, I see your point there. But remember that this is a purely hypothetical situation. Once the singularity is reached, it doesn't "exist" anymore in its original universe. "Existing in an universe" in my theory indicates wether or not a set of information is present in a certain "universe". Since it's not technically "in" the universe, and it's calculating what can "happen" in that universe (aka all the results of the information in the universe), the singularity will not have to deal with itself.


The problem that arises, the way I see it, is proving that such a solution exists since not all recursive problems converge to a single or a finite set of values. Anyway, this comic seems relevant now.
That's an interesting comic. The problem is that in all your definitions and sentences, you stick to the general definition of universe we have today.

As I said once or twice in my previous posts, the assumption of the singularity existing and being able to process its universe without processing itself, is heavily based on my theory (and my view of space and time, especially time). This situation in which a singularity creates a new universe originally caused a paradox in my theory, and I originally tried to fix it with the same method I used to fix some of my other paradoxes: imagining one universe (known originally as "non-verse" and later as "nyan-verse" because I like memes) that does "exist" in time, but contains all paradoxical information and has no "presence" in any time dimension.

This solution did not work until I supposed that the singularity, being "infinitely powerful" when it comes to calculating a universe, can be considered like a universe itself. That because the singularity was in a point in time, but the nyanverse isn't.

Without the basics of my theory, as I said, it's very hard to understand what I mean. Just know that basically as soon as the singularity is able to calculate anything in its original universe, and in case it decides to simulate its own one, it "becomes" that one. Physical position within its original universe shouldn't be considered, because it's useless in this problem. The singularity's only behaviour was to "calculate its universe". Wether it is "in" its original universe or not, is unrelated, since the singularity is not a physical thing. It's the information itself that is able to process the other information without affecting it.

The Singularity transcends any rule, because it's "an universe on its own", or, in the correct terms, it's "an infinite set of information bound by defined rules". Those rules are not the same as our universe, nor are they the same as the original universe where the singularity once existed physically.

EDIT: I ended up spamming anyway. Well then.

EDIT2: a TL;DR version, extremely simplified, would be the following: the singularity is an infinite set of information that calculates the other set's possibilities (aka what can happen in its original universe). The two sets are unrelated to each other in these calculations because the singularity's behaviour does not affect the universe. So the singularity can just "ignore" itself.
 

ElectroMan

Jack of All Shades
I know the rest of that cumbersome annex you call a "theory" is just trolling, but I thought it would be interesting to ponder about the interesting consequences of having an all-knowing entity in any kind of reality. Then I remembered this is the GMC and that's wishful thinking.
 

GVmG

Raechel
To be exact, part of my theory is only trolling (mostly, the roleplaying on ask.fm). That said, ignoring the troll parts, there is a plausible macaroni theory (as in I haven't found anything that explicitly makes it impossible or broken in any way). Yes, it was born from roy trying to "spawn" a plate of macaroni in front of himself in a "what would your superpower be" topic in the old GMC, but that was just what originated the thought of it. Right now the theory has barely anything to do with macaroni other than teh name and it's origin.

One last thing aboutt he paradox that I'll say is that you'd think the singularity could also predict everything in the new universe, but it doesn't have any experience about its laws so it can't calculate anything.

Can we please stop talking about that though? My head already hurts.

We can still ponder about an entity that created this universe after growing bored of its own one if you want. My original thought on the subject (that created the "singularity paradox" in my theory) was that this "entity" would jsut watch and not interfere with the universe it made in any way. It would just watch and study it, just like we watch and study microorganisms and galaxies.
 

roytheshort

The Village Idiot
One last thing aboutt he paradox that I'll say is that you'd think the singularity could also predict everything in the new universe, but it doesn't have any experience about its laws so it can't calculate anything.
Yes it does, the laws in that Universe have to follow the ones of the Universe it's currently in. That doesn't make any sense.
 

GVmG

Raechel
No. The simularity just creates a random set of information. The information itself will react according to the "reaction" that the information have with each other.

Also Roy I already explained multiple times that physical location of the universes is meaningless in the paradox. So the new universe does not have to work with the rules of the first one.

Can we now talk about the implications of our universe possibly having being created by such an "entity"?

EDIT: or the jet smoke banana. That's also an interesting topic.
 
No implications really. If everything if flawlessly simulated to follow specific rules, we wouldn't be able to find out unless some specific error or flaw is found. For example, when you look at a shadow and it looks kind of pixely.
 
The sense of terror and dread I feel from watching those clips is just a natural instinct of knowing that we've been beaten, we have met our overlords. It's too late to stop it. We must give in to our fear and surender if we want the privilege to live as slaves to the superior beings.
 
L

Law

Guest
I typed "as" because the glitch only comes up when I'm searching for someone and "as" is very easy to type.

Nice try, but this won't be like that time you caught me looking at penguins while listening to celine dion.
 
L

Law

Guest
Oh, hrm, probably should have realised it's a bad idea to put people's names on the internet.

E: Have I removed the picture? My edits don't seem to be working...
 

RekNepZ

GMC Historian
Oh, hrm, probably should have realised it's a bad idea to put people's names on the internet.

E: Have I removed the picture? My edits don't seem to be working...
Pic's still there, though you have to click on it to see it.

E. It's gone now.
 
Top