It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
How exactly does our inability to program past our current knowledge mean it would be impossible for the world to be virtual.
originally posted by: mikegrouchy
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Char-Lee
Weeeell... The universe would never be able to be properly simulated with binary computing, because things aren't always an either/or answer. in fact, they usually aren't. So no programmer would be able to adequately answer your question in the OP.
One just uses a smaller subset of binary then. If something isn't always yes/no give it ten bits, and it's only yes when all ten are switched on, or more than five, or what ever ratio / specific mode you require. In fact the vast majority of everything we experience is an accumulation of something else's experience. Even light. The color it has is the result of it's life story.
Mike Grouchy
originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
I haven't followed this whole thread, but I just wanted to add: if we're going to stretch the biblical "created the earth and the heavens" stuff into "programmed a virtual reality," why do we need to be precise on how long it took?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Char-Lee
Weeeell... The universe would never be able to be properly simulated with binary computing, because things aren't always an either/or answer. in fact, they usually aren't. So no programmer would be able to adequately answer your question in the OP.
originally posted by: mikegrouchy
One just uses a smaller subset of binary then. If something isn't always yes/no give it ten bits, and it's only yes when all ten are switched on, or more than five, or what ever ratio / specific mode you require. In fact the vast majority of everything we experience is an accumulation of something else's experience. Even light. The color it has is the result of it's life story.
Mike Grouchy
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Smaller subset of binary? What does that even mean? If binary doesn't work, then you have to up the number base. What you are describing is just a circuit board...
I was wildly interested in Ternary computing as the beginning of my IT career. Sadly, only a few russian programmers are still actively pursuing it. Could you imagine computers that operate on Base 3, rather than 2?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
How exactly does our inability to program past our current knowledge mean it would be impossible for the world to be virtual.
No one on earth knows the capabilities of any programming done in a base above 2, because no one on earth has really done it yet. Yes, there is testing for quantum computing, but it is very limited and still needs to be more thoroughly explored.
No one on earth knows the capabilities of any programming done in a base above 2, because no one on earth has really done it yet. Yes, there is testing for quantum computing, but it is very limited and still needs to be more thoroughly explored.
originally posted by: mikegrouchy
I'm sorry. My mistake. I thought I was talking with someone who understood math and had actually done some VR programming. If the answer above seems completely meaningless to the reader, just know that there are no buzz-words in the explanation and that a nine year old could follow the given approach and program a solution before their class period is over.
In other words, if the reader "doesn't want to know" then they "don't want to know." Saying things like have to as if there is only one way to do math, and then up the number base as though there is no such thing as smaller fractions .... how to say it? What to say to such a train wreck of opinion and math-sounding words.
Your Fired. Not qualified to work with this crew. And a disruption to the focus and efforts of those who are actually trying to build something. Please leave the construction site immediately, before we have you escorted by security. If you want to criticize our construction efforts go find an opinion magazine somewhere and waste a reporters time. Not ours.
Mike Grouchy
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Says the guy who contributed a zero substance response to my post (oh and doesn't know the difference between your and you're).
I happen to actually HAVE programming experience buddy. I studied math extensively. I've studied the computer science models that apply to computers. I know what a Turning Machine is. What experience do YOU have an the industry to tell me that I'm wrong? I'd wager none considering your response about a "subset of binary".
I'm no programmer, I'm a hardware/network gal, but the idea of Ternary computers is something I've always been fond of. I imagine fuzzy logic would be easier if expressed in ternary, and Boolean would be more efficient as well.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ScientificRailgun
Yea, it would be pretty neat. More choices and options, means more power. Though conditional statements would have to be redone.
There was actually a case of someone who successfully emulated Ternary computing on a binary machine, but it was still only a proof of concept idea, and the underlying hardware was still binary, so the author confessed it wasn't true Ternary computing. I think it was called "Ternac", or something similar. Though he did prove that Ternary emulation could be done, and that it would perform just as well as Binary. That is, on a Binary machine. If a Ternary system was truly built from the hardware level upward using today's technology, imagine the possibilities!
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ScientificRailgun
Yep. Plus, one of the beauties is that with higher bases, you could always simulate a lower base system by restricting the number of outputs it can do. So a computer made in base 3 could easily simulate a base 2 computer. You just can't go in reverse (which is what I've been trying to explain to grouchy, but he appears to be too busy wanting to hear himself talk than actually listen to what someone knowledgeable on the subject has to say about it).
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ScientificRailgun
Interesting. I was unfamiliar with that account. Do you have a link to anything I can read about it? Though like you said it could only simulate up to binary computing, clearly it could never exceed binary computing, because at heart it is still technically binary computing.
Learning new programming languages and techniques isn't so bad. Though I could see it taking awhile before everyone was proficient in that computing, since everyone would start out at the same understanding level, with nothing prior to build on it except binary computing. So I'd think that the first base 3 computers we build will be programmed in a mish-mash of binary and ternary computing since binary is something they are familiar with. Though they'd probably wouldn't be able to use object oriented programming, but maybe functional or conditional programming languages.