It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Thorneblood
How can this be a metaphor? Are you kidding?? It´s ok if you´re on his defence but keep it logic ok?
The OP wrote he wants answers from someone who is into VR-programming.
-> Then, several "programmers" write their opinion in the thread.
OP is not satisfied with Krazyshots answer, wants some information from someone who REALY was into VR programming
-> Shows he has no idea of how "VR-programming" would be done.
I asked him to define VR-programming and said I bet his answers look like the description of current OOP
No you come and say I "don´t get it" because its all a metaphor.
BIGGEST FACEPALM EVER
Better would be another class, derived from Vehicle called "Car" or "Bike" that describes those functions and variables (speed,color,status) and overtakes (inherits) everything described in the class vehicle.
It would be easier to start with "the big bang" and let the simulation sort the parameters out as the atoms get created etc.
Those objects are then used in the runtime environment. Would be our reality. For a car, you still need a driver that would be another object generated by a class called "Human". The biggest problem here would be, how to simulate a brain or even billion brains to get a reason for the human to use the car (drive to town, meet others).
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: char-lee
Good question. To answer that question, I'm going to introduce you to a computer programming concept called recursion (for a fun time, google recursion and you'll see that it asks if you really meant "recursion"). Recursion is where a function within the program calls itself.
Recursive functions are usually built with conditional statements so that you don't accidentally cause a function to call itself forever. One of the conditions is supposed to be a terminating statement, and once reached will send its output to the previous calls of itself until all the functions have been resolved.
I know that may not make a lot of sense (that's why I posted the wiki link on it), but I brought it up for a reason. Programmers don't try to program things individually, they create processes and functions that they can call at will that do it for them. In this case, there are processes in reality that are recursive in nature. Evolution takes the previous function (the parents) and calls itself with different variables (their children and the various mutations that they may have gained). But this isn't just constrained to evolution of life. ALL evolutionary processes are recursive in nature.
Therefore if one were to program a VR of the universe, it is likely that the person would program many "set it and forget it" processes that you just call and then let them do the rest. There is no direction from the operator or programmer, you just let things happen. That is MUCH easier to do than micro-managing EVERY single different life form in the universe.
I wonder if you have a large "set it and forget it" system and you let it go and don't do anything does it corrupt over time, do programs need upkeep is it enough to build in some form up fix?
There is a very high probability that it screws up over time. The question is How do you define screwing up?
Is a screwed up simulation everything that does not resemble our universe?
The model only uses equations from theories constructed from decades (even centuries) of astronomical observations and allowed to evolve with time. The result is nothing short of breathtaking and it can be hard to distinguish the model from real observations.
Today, however, astronomers have announced the results of three months of computer number-crunching, combining 8,000 CPUs all running in parallel, modeling our evolving universe. If the same simulation was carried out on your office desktop computer, the simulation would take 2,000 years to recreate.
Keep in mind, according to the rules of this universe, nothing last forever. Everything eventually breaks down and falls apart (even matter, though the lifespan of matter happens to be longer than the predicted age of the universe), so it isn't hard to assume that a computer program will do the same. Hard drives fail. Circuit boards fail. Data becomes corrupted. Etc.
originally posted by: Char-Lee
originally posted by: VVV88
The Hebrew word that was translated to "days" is Yom. Yom relates to the concept of time. Yom is not just for a day, but for time in general. How yom is translated depends on the context of its use. For example, Yom can mean epochs or eras. As a Christian, I do not believe the Earth was created in 6 literal days.
It does say it was day and night and a second day etc.
If one were to program this Universe you wouldn't need to define a class for every object we experience in this reality. You would simply need to define a single algorithm that, when continuously executed, exponentially expands into everything that we experience today.