How today's computers can indeed allow us to visually time travel.

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by byeluvolk
 


Thought-provoking for sure! Even though we are technologically limited and have too little time and processing power to be able to view the results of such an endeavour; it did get my mind going.

For our future-selves or for a technologically-advanced alien race, it would make for a most interesting experiment. Imagine generating a random image of say an alien-looking landscape, and using that image to stimulate creativity - perhaps a future tool for an author or artist looking for inspiration?

The possibilities are really endless. Every generated "coherent and sensible" image may be a reflection of a real and existing world - be it in an alternate reality or on another dimension. Some purport that "the action of thinking of a concept is enough to instantaneously create that reality", and the same can most probably be said of "creating reality via image-generation". Great - now I have another mind-bender to add to all those already overworked processes in my brain. Thanks.

S+F




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 



You have missed the point entirely. The program I wrote is not random at all. It very systematically steps through every possible configuration of pixels on the screen. Given enough time it will ABSOLUTLY show you every possible image.
edit on 21-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)


I also have been writing code for sometime. Either people are totally over-thinking, not reading, or just not understanding what at all you mean.

Not saving the files, you are absolutely correct, you could start with each pixel as black and then start with the first one changing. Making sure you loop through each possible combination, while this would be like you stated an astronomical number it is possible and absolutely would work.

for a cool idea. Kind of like the 10,000 year clock, you won't be around to see it but you know it will happen.
edit on 8/21/2011 by geraldcole because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod
 


No actually my math is 100% correct you are wrong. The formula is Colors^(resX*resY). So I am not sure where you got the idea that I had done it wrong. And my statement of time if you actually read the thread was

1.26001498665117428985579442281622900441043825561687(repeating decimal) E36116 years

So once again I am not sure what you mean. As this was for the OLD CGA system even. If you expand that to modern day capabilities just go ahead and raise this exponentially till the end of time.
edit on 21-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by shimmeringsilver73
 


We have the technology. I have done this already in fact I did it back in 1985ish on an old 8088 system running CGA graphics. What we do not have is the time to wait for even a single picture to be made, let alone one with any meaning.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by geraldcole
 


At last!! Finally, someone who really gets it. Well others may have I guess, but so many posts have missed the point entirely I was beginning to wonder if I needed to rewrite the idea from scratch and start over.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by shimmeringsilver73
 


We have the technology. I have done this already in fact I did it back in 1985ish on an old 8088 system running CGA graphics. What we do not have is the time to wait for even a single picture to be made, let alone one with any meaning.

It would be interesting if we could program it to do similar patterns to say a picture of a man for example.
You know how facial recognition software can detect faces, with that in mind maybe there can be a way to program the randomness of the pixels to not be so random.


Anyway thanks for this thread, it's really opened my mind to the idea. I don't know why it never crossed my mind.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by byeluvolk
 


Nope I got it as soon as I read it, wasn't going to say anything until I read all of the posts of everyone not understanding.

So I had to be sure to chime in so you didn't go blue in the face trying to make people understand.

If google did this people would be like wow omg totally awesome.
Then sort through billions of pictures.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
HI - I formed an account to reply to this. I understand what you are saying completely. I had this idea too about 15 years ago. Somewhere I have an illustration that explains it in a picture format - that might make it easier for people to understand what you are saying. It will probably take me a few days to find that in my papers, but it is not my main concern to have others understand. My main concern is to to say to you - yes I know exactly what mean in your post.

When I came up with this idea I was thinking you could just use black and white pixels (this would get rid of a lot of the junk images to wade through), and you don't need a big grid. 1000x1000 pixels would probably be overkill. I am thinking 144x144 might be enough to initially get some meaningful imagery.

144x144 would give you a 2x2 inch (at 72 dpi which is what computer screens are) image to look at.

There are two ways the program would work.

1. It would sequentially generate every possible image within the range of possible images. Each image would have an associated binary number within the range of possible numbers.

2. You could plug in a binary number within the range of possible numbers, and that image would be displayed.

Another way to think of it is like this -

You could create a camera that takes pictures that are 2x2 inches (72 dpi images are 142x142pixels.)

Every possible picture that you could take with that camera would have a corresponding "binary number" that would display just that picture. BUT, that number, and subsequently that picture, already exists (or should I say potentially already exists), within the computer program. Think of that, every possible image you could take with that camera already exists - that raises the question - what is creativity? Does it exist. Is creativity really just having an 'eye'?

Another way to think about this - every jpg image that already exists on the internet could be resized to 142x142 dpi and converted to a black and white bitmap. THAT image would already exist (or potentially exist if you prefer) in your computer program.

What you are interested in are those images that would look new, unfamiliar but identifiable as 'something'. Within that collection of imagery would be every possible image theoretically possible to view. Within those images the unknown would be known, the unseen seen.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by kaleshchand
 


both your images are only 72 dpi, not matter how many colors/bits. they are limited by their screen resolution. So of course we aren't going to see a difference.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by eightonefive
 


Actually you can see the difference in them, but that was his point. That you can drastically cut the number of pictures by cutting the number of colors / pixel, and thus the time involved to see them. And you do not have to lose alot of quality in doing so. However even with my original program running only 4 colors the time needed to display all of them is beyond the scope of human comprehension. So this is really a moot point, no matter how much you try to cut the number of possible images you never get it to a point you could ever hope to see an image that makes sense. That was the point of this topic. That wile indeed this very simple program contains the answer to life the universe and everything, you will never live long enough to find it. So while you could indeed see the future with this program, the future you wish to see will arrive long before the program shows it to you.
edit on 21-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Hi image & colour fans.

Have you considered to do research on "fractals" ?? B-)

Long hours of fun, with FRACTINT.EXE

Blue skies.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by byeluvolk
 


If you can make a program to do it with my core i7 930 with two radeon HD5850 in crossfire, and cycle through them as fast as possible using the CL code using the GPU's for large scale threading, I'll give it a go to run on my pc ;-P

1920 x 1080. Windows 7 64bit



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Awesome idea and post!

Author Jorge Luis Borges envisioned a similar idea with text.

The Library of Babel

It imagines using the letters of the Latin Alphabet, the space, and simple punctuation - arranged into extreme yet finite number of possible permutations, resulting in every possible book. He also includes a length requirement, although technically this would not be necessary, but serves to bring down the total number of books and not include books with three words, etc...




Though the majority of the books in this universe are pure gibberish, the library also must contain, somewhere, every coherent book ever written, or that might ever be written, and every possible permutation or slightly erroneous version of every one of those books. The narrator notes that the library must contain all useful information, including predictions of the future, biographies of any person, and translations of every book in all languages. Conversely, for many of the texts some language could be devised that would make it readable with any of a vast number of different contents.
edit on 21-8-2011 by quango because: added bit about length of text as parameter



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by quango
 


Yes that is similar but think of this… The graphical system here will indeed cover all the text. as you will eventually get all the pages of this book to appear as graphic images as well.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


Even with this hardware the universe will finally die out before it finishes. That is the punch line here. You will indeed eventually be able to see the end of the universe with this program, unfortunately the universe will most likely end in reality before the program will show it.


This is what I was talking about earlier where I was telling another poster that had set it up as a random thing. The random version will indeed have a better chance of displaying a coherent picture faster than the sequential version, however the random version may also “never” show one as it cycles random garbage till the end of time. But if you were really going to do this with a “hope” of ever seeing a real picture, the random method is the only way you can expect this. As the sequential setup may guarantee every picture, the amount of time it takes to actually get to one is beyond the realm of possibility.
edit on 21-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Just to focus down on a single idea:

An image showing us who shot JFK from the grassy knoll would finally solve the mystery. And we would find ourselves there, and our neighbors, and every person who has ever lived including Kennedy himself. And nobody at all.

The scene in Dealy plaza would be captured from every possible angle and we could watch it play out frame by frame down to the microsecond level, and every possible scenario of events within those seconds as well - just this one single event in history could be played out in an almost infinite amount of potential variation, differing only in the most miniscule of details, and each of those potentials could be displayed from an almost infinte number of vantage points...

Geez - and then at that given instant of time, images of an infinte number of other locales, all across the planet, the galaxy, etc.. etc..

It's mind boggling.



edit on 22-8-2011 by quango because: clarity



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by quango
 


Yes you are starting to see the point now. I have friends that call me, and email me now nearly 30 years later, and curse at me as they have been sitting thinking of this and slipping ever closer to the brink.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I was very sad the day my old 8088 died and this program finally stopped running. I had written it as a hobby sort of thing way back when, but it was always sort of on my mind. When I got a new computer, rather than toss out the old one, I just started this program running. The program wrote its current state to the HDD so in the event of a computer crash or a power failure I could restart it from the last “saved” image. Over the years I would restart this and let it run, but after many years the computer died, and I never went back and rewrote the program on a new computer. It was sort of an “Ephemeral Art Piece” in my house for many years. People would ask me about it, and I would explain it to them. As I mentioned at first they just did not get it. Then days, or weeks later, they would finally understand and it would be a hot topic of conversation for days on end. And as I was saying even now I get phone calls and emails from some of these people telling me they were lost in thought about this again 30 years later.
edit on 22-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 



You have missed the point entirely. The program I wrote is not random at all. It very systematically steps through every possible configuration of pixels on the screen. Given enough time it will ABSOLUTLY show you every possible image.
edit on 21-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)


You are talking about perspective and memory in the human mind vs time. Pictures with purpose would not appear on the screen without the building blocks of thought that went into the design of form. Describe how a picture would appear with random pixelization. This is comparable to explaining how a human heart came into form randomly, apart form conscious thought. The answer according to chaos theory is that no picture will arise from the randomly generated pixel combinations. Am I missing something from your description that was not explained in the description?






Sorry missed this one…


Yes you have missed the point here. The program does not display random images. It will systematically cycle each pixel through every possible combination of colors. Just like counting, eventually a 4 digit number XXXX will show every possible number in this range. So to this program will cycle sequentially every possible configuration of pixels and colors. This will result in every possible picture eventually being displayed. The random function does not appear once in the program it is a set of nested loops and counters incrementing the pixel to be changed, and then incrementing the color of that pixel. Granted the time it will take to ever get a picture that is anything other than static is longer than the earth has been around… That was sort of the point here. This simple program contains the entire universe, and every possible alternate universe you care to think of. Not only will it display everything that is possible it will also display everything that is impossible as well.

If this is still not clear to you, I will make a picture illustrating the idea on a smaller scale. On a screen with a resolution of 3x3 and only 4 colors, this is still a huge number of possible “pictures” and of course nothing remotely interesting could be made, but I think if you still do not understand what I am saying this might help.




****EDIT

Ok I made a simple screen with a resolution of 3x3 and 4 colors. I did not show all possibilities here, as even this small setup is huge in the number of possible pictures. But I hope it helps anybody who does not understand what I am talking about when I say it cycles the pixels to show every possible picture.



edit on 22-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I get what you are saying. The problem is this: With music, a performance from a unique musician cannot be duplicated by anything but the performer. Randomly generating sound will not produce a combination of tones that recreate, say, Victor Wooten playing Amazing Grace. The same will hold true for the program ever reproducing a child playing volleyball on the beach with a dolphin flopping in the background. There are missing variables that can only be reproduced by a catalog of forms. God divided the light from the darkness and created form. Form expresses from the essence (information) contained within. An oak tree is enfolded in the acorn. This is designed form from a sequence of information. This is not possible apart from the imprint of the essence included into the program. You might get some nice geometric patterns, but you will not get the pictures described by the designer.


Originally posted by byeluvolk

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 



You have missed the point entirely. The program I wrote is not random at all. It very systematically steps through every possible configuration of pixels on the screen. Given enough time it will ABSOLUTLY show you every possible image.
edit on 21-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)


You are talking about perspective and memory in the human mind vs time. Pictures with purpose would not appear on the screen without the building blocks of thought that went into the design of form. Describe how a picture would appear with random pixelization. This is comparable to explaining how a human heart came into form randomly, apart form conscious thought. The answer according to chaos theory is that no picture will arise from the randomly generated pixel combinations. Am I missing something from your description that was not explained in the description?






Sorry missed this one…


Yes you have missed the point here. The program does not display random images. It will systematically cycle each pixel through every possible combination of colors. Just like counting, eventually a 4 digit number XXXX will show every possible number in this range. So to this program will cycle sequentially every possible configuration of pixels and colors. This will result in every possible picture eventually being displayed. The random function does not appear once in the program it is a set of nested loops and counters incrementing the pixel to be changed, and then incrementing the color of that pixel. Granted the time it will take to ever get a picture that is anything other than static is longer than the earth has been around… That was sort of the point here. This simple program contains the entire universe, and every possible alternate universe you care to think of. Not only will it display everything that is possible it will also display everything that is impossible as well.

If this is still not clear to you, I will make a picture illustrating the idea on a smaller scale. On a screen with a resolution of 3x3 and only 4 colors, this is still a huge number of possible “pictures” and of course nothing remotely interesting could be made, but I think if you still do not understand what I am saying this might help.




****EDIT

Ok I made a simple screen with a resolution of 3x3 and 4 colors. I did not show all possibilities here, as even this small setup is huge in the number of possible pictures. But I hope it helps anybody who does not understand what I am talking about when I say it cycles the pixels to show every possible picture.



edit on 22-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-8-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-8-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join