1
New Theories / Simulated Universe + Vision
« on: 14/10/2011 18:06:57 »
This isn't a theory of mine per se, nor something I believe in just purely a process of thought that leads to nowhere.
I read somewhere that when you look at deep field infrared images of space, the resolution of the camera should allow us to see certain distances and with a certain predetermined level of pixelation, that makes sense.
So the stars are so far away that when you zoom in the final output is pixelated... From recent images a lot have been showing up more pixelated than they should be. (can't find source at time of writing). The reason this is interesting is it brings forward the idea that we are in a simulation...nothing really new I suppose.
Space at a certain distance stops being high quality... We are zooming in on the edge of the universe which is just a giant image instead of the real objects...
So I thought to myself... We can look under a microscope and see pixel perfect images as far as our eyes are concerned. Everything we see is at 1 to 1 ratio, perfect quality.
If I were in a room and life was simulated then you would have to argue that efficiency would be built into the program, if nothing really exists then why would you bother rendering objects if they couldn't be seen? The tree that falls down in the forest wouldn't make a sound sort of thing...If it doesn't need to exist, why would it?
In quantum physics (which i know nothing about) there are laws along the lines that state that once you have observed something you alter the state. Could this just be a side effect from the object being rendered?
So back to the room... If i stare at the wall from 3 metres away the wall is at 100% resolution... If I'm 2m away the wall is still 100% resolution. There is no pixelation involved... Unless every-time we move and observe things they are rendered. if I could take a photo with my eyes and zoom in what would I see?
This would be impossible to prove so the arguement is pointless.
Much like a camera I wonder whether our eyes have 'frames per second', maybe this is how fast the rendering takes place...
Next, if you could travel faster than the render time what would we see? If we travel so fast would the universe appear in stop motion, because that too is rendered? A strobe light of rendered images. Can there be an infinite frame rate?
It sounds so ridiculous because here I am, there you are... What we see is real, I believe it to be real. But what makes it real? If I knew I was in a simulation would it make any difference? I'd still feel like me, perhaps I wouldn't look at things the same way but this is my reality.
When you see a movie from the 80s the special effects are crap... What if there is another race with vision twice as crisp as ours, would our vision to them appear as if it were from the 80s too? How do we even know the quality of our vision isn't already pixelated but we dont know any different because our vision is stuck at that particular quality. All we are trying to do is emulate it with our technology.
End thought process... []
I read somewhere that when you look at deep field infrared images of space, the resolution of the camera should allow us to see certain distances and with a certain predetermined level of pixelation, that makes sense.
So the stars are so far away that when you zoom in the final output is pixelated... From recent images a lot have been showing up more pixelated than they should be. (can't find source at time of writing). The reason this is interesting is it brings forward the idea that we are in a simulation...nothing really new I suppose.
Space at a certain distance stops being high quality... We are zooming in on the edge of the universe which is just a giant image instead of the real objects...
So I thought to myself... We can look under a microscope and see pixel perfect images as far as our eyes are concerned. Everything we see is at 1 to 1 ratio, perfect quality.
If I were in a room and life was simulated then you would have to argue that efficiency would be built into the program, if nothing really exists then why would you bother rendering objects if they couldn't be seen? The tree that falls down in the forest wouldn't make a sound sort of thing...If it doesn't need to exist, why would it?
In quantum physics (which i know nothing about) there are laws along the lines that state that once you have observed something you alter the state. Could this just be a side effect from the object being rendered?
So back to the room... If i stare at the wall from 3 metres away the wall is at 100% resolution... If I'm 2m away the wall is still 100% resolution. There is no pixelation involved... Unless every-time we move and observe things they are rendered. if I could take a photo with my eyes and zoom in what would I see?
This would be impossible to prove so the arguement is pointless.
Much like a camera I wonder whether our eyes have 'frames per second', maybe this is how fast the rendering takes place...
Next, if you could travel faster than the render time what would we see? If we travel so fast would the universe appear in stop motion, because that too is rendered? A strobe light of rendered images. Can there be an infinite frame rate?
It sounds so ridiculous because here I am, there you are... What we see is real, I believe it to be real. But what makes it real? If I knew I was in a simulation would it make any difference? I'd still feel like me, perhaps I wouldn't look at things the same way but this is my reality.
When you see a movie from the 80s the special effects are crap... What if there is another race with vision twice as crisp as ours, would our vision to them appear as if it were from the 80s too? How do we even know the quality of our vision isn't already pixelated but we dont know any different because our vision is stuck at that particular quality. All we are trying to do is emulate it with our technology.
End thought process... []