xeni at May 7th, 2014 14:16 — #1
falcor at May 8th, 2014 05:32 — #2
ulises_jofre at May 7th, 2014 14:39 — #4
So, along the virtual evolution of the universe, which is the probability that within a galaxy like the virtual milky way, from the dust of its exploded stars, the living being who uses a computer was formed - computer included? A favourable case among infinite unfavourable possibilities? Fifty-fifty? To be or not to be, is that the question? Are calculations simplified or made more complex when the subjective self of each one is the entity that is studied? Anyway, what is the relationship between life and immense numbers? Is life a folding process of infinity? Is it just something infinite that would have enough to allow a self, something isolated but of infinite claims? But, is infinity credible within something with a beginning, out of a Big Bang? And is it credible within something with an ending, with the inevitable death around the corner? Along these lines, there is a book, a preview in http://goo.gl/rfVqw6 Just another suggestion in order to free-think for a while
jackbird at May 7th, 2014 14:40 — #5
running it on even a state-of-the-art desktop computer would take almost 2,000 years, he adds. Even run across more than 8,000 processors, the simulation still took several months.
Um, would that be three months?
ratel at May 7th, 2014 14:45 — #6
Better computer model:
sigmund at May 7th, 2014 15:45 — #7
wysinwyg at May 7th, 2014 15:57 — #8
Yes. The set N of natural numbers has a least element (1) but no highest element and it has an infinite number of elements.
The subset of real numbers R denoted by [0,1] has a least element (0), a greatest element (1), and yet still has an infinite number of elements. Somewhat surprisingly, [0,1] contains more elements than N -- there are different types of infinity some of which are bigger than others.
udqbpn at May 7th, 2014 16:11 — #9
What are those massive, seemingly larger-than-galaxy sized explosions in the simulations? Anybody know?
falcor at May 8th, 2014 05:33 — #10
osmium at May 7th, 2014 17:43 — #11
Scaling isn't linear, sadly. There's a lot of overhead involved when you go from running a calculation on just one computer to running it on many. For example due to the time it takes to transfer data from the simulation from one computer to another. This all adds up and is why, in the end, it probably takes quite a bit longer than 'just' 3 months.
lemoutan at May 7th, 2014 17:47 — #13
I note Mr Steven Wright is still located at E5.
bryce_anderson at May 7th, 2014 18:20 — #14
Everyone help please. I've lost my watch in there someplace.
crenquis at May 7th, 2014 18:56 — #15
I wonder how many nested/parallel universe simulations there are now? How long will it take to get Illustris to the point where it has some sort of semi-sentient electronic lifeforms like the simulation that we are in?
nickyg at May 7th, 2014 21:00 — #16
turtles all the way down bro
jerwin at May 7th, 2014 22:47 — #17
It's a physics paper, which means that it's on arxiv Yay!
teapot at May 7th, 2014 23:31 — #18
Bob fucking damn... which noob over there saved these things as PNG-8s? Such a glorious visualisation of our universe ruined by someone who doesn't understand when to use which formats. Save for web > Jpeg 100 people. C'mon.
nelsie at May 8th, 2014 09:38 — #19
You can't see him right now: he's on an intergalactic cruise. In his office.
xeni at May 12th, 2014 14:16 — #20
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.