I still can't find the abs or height slider on mine, any ideas?
The abs sliders only work in the gym and take awhile to change them.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
so let me get this straight. "Life" is a Kickstarter Open World PVP SURVIVAL MMO that lets you build anything, go anywhere, do anything, but also has Perma-Death? When you die you get your account deleted forever, and you can never return?
I already want my money back
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
so let me get this straight. "Life" is a Kickstarter Open World PVP SURVIVAL MMO that lets you build anything, go anywhere, do anything, but also has Perma-Death? When you die you get your account deleted forever, and you can never return?
so let me get this straight. "Life" is a Kickstarter Open World PVP SURVIVAL MMO that lets you build anything, go anywhere, do anything, but also has Perma-Death? When you die you get your account deleted forever, and you can never return?
No assumptions should be made. Rules of the game are off the table. We shouldn't assume the intent of the developers. We don't know them. We rewrite them.
As our technology progresses forward, we'll be able to build computers capable of running a virtual universe. Then again in that virtual universe lifeforms and computers will evolve to host their own virtual universe and so on.
So there is 1 real universe, and an endless number of virtual universe.
Therefore statistically speaking we are in an MMORPG right now.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
As our technology progresses forward, we'll be able to build computers capable of running a virtual universe. Then again in that virtual universe lifeforms and computers will evolve to host their own virtual universe and so on.
So there is 1 real universe, and an endless number of virtual universe.
Therefore statistically speaking we are in an MMORPG right now.
...this is true only if you reject (or assign almost nil value) to the first two postulates in Nick Bostrom's argument, each of which are worth considering on their own.
1) Great Filter
Maybe there is some filter which prevents us from ever reaching a stage where technology capable of simulating consciousness is possible; nuclear war, economic or environmental collapse, or maybe Moore's law tapers off in conjunction with other factors: just as the space race in the mid 20th century didn't lead to a new era of space exploration as expected, maybe the leaps and bounds we are seeing in computation will fizzle at some level before the necessary technology is feasible.
Perhaps consciousness is impossible to simulate because it's not materialistic. Consider a computer that looks like a human, responds intelligently and tells you it's conscious. Would you believe it? The human mind is very different from a computer; neurons are far more complex than binary transistors, and the speed at which a signal propagates through a neural network is order of magnitudes slower. It's also not clear whether neuronal activity results from, or is caused by consciousness; consciousness may not be simply a result of mathematical emergence, but rather something non-material.
Perhaps the second postulate is true that future civilizations will choose not to simulate consciousness due to ethical concerns even though the technology exists, at least not frequently enough to tip the scale in favor of the simulation hypothesis. This may seem improbable at first glance, but consider that we haven't blown ourselves back to the stone age with nukes (yet) even though the technology exists.
The simulation hypothesis only holds water if you reject these first two possibilities. Interesting to note (as in the video I posted up thread) if we ever do unequivocally simulate consciousness on a large enough scale, this would imply by Bostrom's argument that the 'creator level' of human experience would itself almost certainly be simulated, although there would have to be one level of "base reality" as Mr. Musk puts it. Of course, what's to say that this so-called 'ground level' is anything at all like what's in the realm of human experience?
Finally, it's worth noting that "reality isn't real" is not at all a new concept; this is more or less a technocentric take on an ancient, religious idea (see especially Samsara, Maya, the Tao Te Ching, or the Tibetan Book of the Dead).
There have been some interesting advances in scientific theory which tend to mirror the simulation hypothesis. One is the holographic principle which states that all information within a three dimensional volume may be encoded on a two-dimensional surface. This has important ramifications for black holes:
If you know much cosmology it also implies some unsettling things about our universe (is the observable universe inside a black hole, or to wit: is this evidence of reality being simulated? I.e. if all information about our universe is encoded on the cosmic horizon, when we look at the cosmic horizon are we looking at the machinery generating our reality?)
The theoretical physicist Dr. James Gates Jr. claims to have discovered a code within the equations of string theory; not just any code but one invented in the 1940's (watch the first four minutes):
This is also on-the-nose when it comes to the simulation hypothesis, as if reality ever were to be simulated by a computer at some point the code on which the simulation ran would have to be invented. What if that point has already occurred?
I strongly recommend taking this with a grain of salt, as none of this is 'scientific proof'; not in the way that we know Einstein was right about General Relativity. It's still interesting to consider.
Post edited by Phaserlight on
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
As our technology progresses forward, we'll be able to build computers capable of running a virtual universe. Then again in that virtual universe lifeforms and computers will evolve to host their own virtual universe and so on.
So there is 1 real universe, and an endless number of virtual universe.
Therefore statistically speaking we are in an MMORPG right now.
...this is true only if you reject (or assign almost nil value) to the first two postulates in Nick Bostrom's argument, each of which are worth considering on their own.
1) Great Filter
Maybe there is some filter which prevents us from ever reaching a stage where technology capable of simulating consciousness is possible; nuclear war, economic or environmental collapse, or maybe Moore's law tapers off in conjunction with other factors: just as the space race in the mid 20th century didn't lead to a new era of space exploration as expected, maybe the leaps and bounds we are seeing in computation will fizzle at some level before the necessary technology is feasible.
Perhaps consciousness is impossible to simulate because it's not materialistic. Consider a computer that looks like a human, responds intelligently and tells you it's conscious. Would you believe it? The human mind is very different from a computer; neurons are far more complex than binary transistors, and the speed at which a signal propagates through a neural network is order of magnitudes slower. It's also not clear whether neuronal activity results from, or is caused by consciousness; consciousness may not be simply a result of mathematical emergence, but rather something non-material.
Perhaps the second postulate is true that future civilizations will choose not to simulate consciousness due to ethical concerns even though the technology exists, at least not frequently enough to tip the scale in favor of the simulation hypothesis. This may seem improbable at first glance, but consider that we haven't blown ourselves back to the stone age with nukes (yet) even though the technology exists.
The simulation hypothesis only holds water if you reject these first two possibilities. Interesting to note (as in the video I posted up thread) if we ever do unequivocally simulate consciousness on a large enough scale, this would imply by Bostrom's argument that the 'creator level' of human experience would itself almost certainly be simulated, although there would have to be one level of "base reality" as Mr. Musk puts it. Of course, what's to say that this so-called 'ground level' is anything at all like what's in the realm of human experience?
Finally, it's worth noting that "reality isn't real" is not at all a new concept; this is more or less a technocentric take on an ancient, religious idea (see especially Samsara, Maya, the Tao Te Ching, or the Tibetan Book of the Dead).
There have been some interesting advances in scientific theory which tend to mirror the simulation hypothesis. One is the holographic principle which states that all information within a three dimensional volume may be encoded on a two-dimensional surface. This has important ramifications for black holes.
If you know much cosmology it also implies some unsettling things about our universe (is the observable universe inside a black hole, or to wit: is this evidence of reality being simulated? I.e. if all information about our universe is encoded on the cosmic horizon, when we look at the cosmic horizon are we looking at the machinery generating our reality?)
The theoretical physicist Dr. James Gates Jr. claims to have discovered a code within the equations of string theory; not just any code but one invented in the 1940's (watch the first four minutes):
This is also on-the-nose when it comes to the simulation hypothesis, as if reality ever were to be simulated by a computer at some point the code on which the simulation ran would have to be invented. What if that point has already occurred?
I strongly recommend taking this with a grain of salt, as none of this is 'scientific proof'; not in the way that we know Einstein was right about General Relativity. It's still interesting to consider.
When ever you think about futurology look to what has happened so far. Have people thought that our tools, machines and computers could not do what a human can in the past...yes countless times.
The Great Filter idea that the human mind cannot replicate itself, falls into this trap. There is an almost mystical something that the human brain has that can never be replicated. Each time a closer step is made this sort of argument moves the goalposts. Computers are the size of a house, you would need one the size of a city to be as amazing as a human brain. They may now be small but you will never beat a chess master. They did beat a chess master but there is something ineffable, something that is so difficult to understand about the human brain that I can't actually tell you what it is, you will never replicate that. Very flawed thinking.
Amisitics, starts with the ethical argument. Start thinking about history, that's how you work out what will happen in the future. We have never stopped using a technology because of ethical reasons. Some have been temporarily halted or slowed down but never stopped. Even when that happened research carried on in unregulated parts of the world. Our track record here is so poor we can safety say no technology will be stopped for ethical reasons. You mentioned nuclear power, the fact we have not blown up the world does not mean research has not marched onwards. What you are actually arguing here is that if we get AI that is the equivalent of human brains don't worry we won't blow the world up.
So for me both AI's with near human cognitive abilities will come and virtual worlds will come, but don't expect anything like this before another 50 years.
The idea that reality is a simulation, I have to ask what benefit is it to us to know if it is a simulation? Would you do anything differently, would science need to change its direction? Keep calm and carry on living.
As our technology progresses forward, we'll be able to build computers capable of running a virtual universe. Then again in that virtual universe lifeforms and computers will evolve to host their own virtual universe and so on.
So there is 1 real universe, and an endless number of virtual universe.
Therefore statistically speaking we are in an MMORPG right now.
...this is true only if you reject (or assign almost nil value) to the first two postulates in Nick Bostrom's argument, each of which are worth considering on their own.
1) Great Filter
Maybe there is some filter which prevents us from ever reaching a stage where technology capable of simulating consciousness is possible; nuclear war, economic or environmental collapse, or maybe Moore's law tapers off in conjunction with other factors: just as the space race in the mid 20th century didn't lead to a new era of space exploration as expected, maybe the leaps and bounds we are seeing in computation will fizzle at some level before the necessary technology is feasible.
Perhaps consciousness is impossible to simulate because it's not materialistic. Consider a computer that looks like a human, responds intelligently and tells you it's conscious. Would you believe it? The human mind is very different from a computer; neurons are far more complex than binary transistors, and the speed at which a signal propagates through a neural network is order of magnitudes slower. It's also not clear whether neuronal activity results from, or is caused by consciousness; consciousness may not be simply a result of mathematical emergence, but rather something non-material.
Perhaps the second postulate is true that future civilizations will choose not to simulate consciousness due to ethical concerns even though the technology exists, at least not frequently enough to tip the scale in favor of the simulation hypothesis. This may seem improbable at first glance, but consider that we haven't blown ourselves back to the stone age with nukes (yet) even though the technology exists.
The simulation hypothesis only holds water if you reject these first two possibilities. Interesting to note (as in the video I posted up thread) if we ever do unequivocally simulate consciousness on a large enough scale, this would imply by Bostrom's argument that the 'creator level' of human experience would itself almost certainly be simulated, although there would have to be one level of "base reality" as Mr. Musk puts it. Of course, what's to say that this so-called 'ground level' is anything at all like what's in the realm of human experience?
Finally, it's worth noting that "reality isn't real" is not at all a new concept; this is more or less a technocentric take on an ancient, religious idea (see especially Samsara, Maya, the Tao Te Ching, or the Tibetan Book of the Dead).
There have been some interesting advances in scientific theory which tend to mirror the simulation hypothesis. One is the holographic principle which states that all information within a three dimensional volume may be encoded on a two-dimensional surface. This has important ramifications for black holes.
If you know much cosmology it also implies some unsettling things about our universe (is the observable universe inside a black hole, or to wit: is this evidence of reality being simulated? I.e. if all information about our universe is encoded on the cosmic horizon, when we look at the cosmic horizon are we looking at the machinery generating our reality?)
The theoretical physicist Dr. James Gates Jr. claims to have discovered a code within the equations of string theory; not just any code but one invented in the 1940's (watch the first four minutes):
This is also on-the-nose when it comes to the simulation hypothesis, as if reality ever were to be simulated by a computer at some point the code on which the simulation ran would have to be invented. What if that point has already occurred?
I strongly recommend taking this with a grain of salt, as none of this is 'scientific proof'; not in the way that we know Einstein was right about General Relativity. It's still interesting to consider.
When ever you think about futurology look to what has happened so far. Have people thought that our tools, machines and computers could not do what a human can in the past...yes countless times.
The Great Filter idea that the human mind cannot replicate itself, falls into this trap. There is an almost mystical something that the human brain has that can never be replicated. Each time a closer step is made this sort of argument moves the goalposts. Computers are the size of a house, you would need one the size of a city to be as amazing as a human brain. They may now be small but you will never beat a chess master. They did beat a chess master but there is something ineffable, something that is so difficult to understand about the human brain that I can't actually tell you what it is, you will never replicate that. Very flawed thinking.
Amisitics, starts with the ethical argument. Start thinking about history, that's how you work out what will happen in the future. We have never stopped using a technology because of ethical reasons. Some have been temporarily halted or slowed down but never stopped. Even when that happened research carried on in unregulated parts of the world. Our track record here is so poor we can safety say no technology will be stopped for ethical reasons. You mentioned nuclear power, the fact we have not blown up the world does not mean research has not marched onwards. What you are actually arguing here is that if we get AI that is the equivalent of human brains don't worry we won't blow the world up.
So for me both AI's with near human cognitive abilities will come and virtual worlds will come, but don't expect anything like this before another 50 years.
The idea that reality is a simulation, I have to ask what benefit is it to us to know if it is a simulation? Would you do anything differently, would science need to change its direction? Keep calm and carry on living.
That is always the fear of AI. Most logical thinking has to take into account and forgive the human experience. Just think of all the assholes who look down on others and assume they are on a superior position. An AI would be far worst emotionless and unforgiving view of humans.
"That is always the fear of AI. Most logical thinking has to take into account and forgive the human experience. Just think of all the assholes who look down on others and assume they are on a superior position. An AI would be far worst emotionless and unforgiving view of humans."
(Quote is playing up)
Well having only talked about will it happen, now on to what will happen? This is a real concern, you could build in emotions to an AI, but if it can truly learn it can unlearn anything you taught it. We may have to face some hard truths about ourselves, anything is possible.
An AI may decided some of us are superior to others, what about Olympic athletes or those with a very high IQ? I don't see any givens here. Technically we may end up with one "onboard" each of us rather like an implanted smartphone though more likely it would act as a terminal. The side of the issue you raise here is really hard to do more than conjecture, whereas will we get AI, that's just a matter of time as far as I can see.
One thing is constant, our dreams of a great technological future lie alongside fears of our technological future. That's been there at least since the industrial revolution, it won't change. For example I would say so far that "technological progress" has been the one key feature of our advancing civilisations allowing us to live like gods compared to the tribal societies we came from. But not everyone would agree with that, we have lost much on the way without a doubt.
One of the completely wrong premise is that all humans are equals.
It's definitely not true. And I'm not talking about human rights here, of course concerning those all should be equals, I'm talking about natural abilities, mindset, individuality, instinct, etc...
For instance some people are definitely smarter than others. And they don't always have a superior education, they are just naturally more intelligent. Just as some people have a more logical way of thinking which will make them better mathematicians or software engineers.
Yeah, genetics can be and are unfair.
And how boring would it be if we really were all equals in all points ?
It doesn't matter. We are treated as equal until proven wrong. I remember years of experts saying college football read option wouldn't work in the NFL. Now it's part of most teams play book in some form once a few teams showed it worked.
Provided that having money to access it is equal (which usually isn't the case), technology can often mitigate differences between people rather than magnify them. This is clearest in medicine where it's much easier to allow people with conditions that would formerly have been crippling or even fatal to lead fairly normal lives than it is to augment and enhance healthy people.
As our technology progresses forward, we'll be able to build computers capable of running a virtual universe. Then again in that virtual universe lifeforms and computers will evolve to host their own virtual universe and so on.
So there is 1 real universe, and an endless number of virtual universe.
Therefore statistically speaking we are in an MMORPG right now.
I'm very skeptical that the size and complexity of a virtual universe can ever match the size and complexity of the universe that contains it. After all, one could regard the size and complexity of the virtual universe as counting toward that of the universe that contains it, as the virtual universe has to be encoded and stored somehow.
To make up numbers for convenience, if the virtual universe can only be 1/10 the size and complexity of the original, then a virtual universe contained in another can only be 1/100 the size and complexity of the original. Chain this down enough times and you eventually hit a virtual universe in which it is impossible to embed another.
In order to have an infinite chain of virtual universes, they'd all have to be infinitely large and complex. Ours probably isn't, as physics would get in the way. Among other things, any fixed density of matter (say, one hydrogen atom per cubic light year) over a large enough volume that expands in all three dimensions will eventually constitute a black hole.
If you believe the Big Bang theory, then technically every outcome was determined at that exact instance. The creation of planets, lifeforms, and even the chemical and neurological changes through interacting with other individuals could have been mathematically calculated.
That would make this reality less of an MMO and more of a simulation.
I don't know what your credentials are, but I know I'm not a physicist and I think it would take someone of that caliber to understand the implications of the Big Bang. My lay interpretation would be that the Big Bang set the parameters of reality, but that there is still room for variation within those parameters. That would be in line with Chaos Theory, I think.
Anyway: 1.I'd probably carry on as I have been, as that seems right to me. 2. I'd probably implement a chat filter and use "Ignore" a lot.
If you believe the Big Bang theory, then technically every outcome was determined at that exact instance. The creation of planets, lifeforms, and even the chemical and neurological changes through interacting with other individuals could have been mathematically calculated.
That would make this reality less of an MMO and more of a simulation.
We wanted a MMO and we got a bloody simulation...typical.
One of the completely wrong premise is that all humans are equals.
It's definitely not true. And I'm not talking about human rights here, of course concerning those all should be equals, I'm talking about natural abilities, mindset, individuality, instinct, etc...
For instance some people are definitely smarter than others. And they don't always have a superior education, they are just naturally more intelligent. Just as some people have a more logical way of thinking which will make them better mathematicians or software engineers.
Yeah, genetics can be and are unfair.
And how boring would it be if we really were all equals in all points ?
It might be boring but think of the snazzy head gear and the cool uniforms.
Comments
~~ postlarval ~~
~~ postlarval ~~
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
What if you woke up one morning to learn, that everything in this reality that you thought was your real life was actually just a dream.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I already want my money back
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
So there is 1 real universe, and an endless number of virtual universe.
Therefore statistically speaking we are in an MMORPG right now.
1) Great Filter
Maybe there is some filter which prevents us from ever reaching a stage where technology capable of simulating consciousness is possible; nuclear war, economic or environmental collapse, or maybe Moore's law tapers off in conjunction with other factors: just as the space race in the mid 20th century didn't lead to a new era of space exploration as expected, maybe the leaps and bounds we are seeing in computation will fizzle at some level before the necessary technology is feasible.
Perhaps consciousness is impossible to simulate because it's not materialistic. Consider a computer that looks like a human, responds intelligently and tells you it's conscious. Would you believe it? The human mind is very different from a computer; neurons are far more complex than binary transistors, and the speed at which a signal propagates through a neural network is order of magnitudes slower. It's also not clear whether neuronal activity results from, or is caused by consciousness; consciousness may not be simply a result of mathematical emergence, but rather something non-material.
2) "Amistics"
Perhaps the second postulate is true that future civilizations will choose not to simulate consciousness due to ethical concerns even though the technology exists, at least not frequently enough to tip the scale in favor of the simulation hypothesis. This may seem improbable at first glance, but consider that we haven't blown ourselves back to the stone age with nukes (yet) even though the technology exists.
The simulation hypothesis only holds water if you reject these first two possibilities. Interesting to note (as in the video I posted up thread) if we ever do unequivocally simulate consciousness on a large enough scale, this would imply by Bostrom's argument that the 'creator level' of human experience would itself almost certainly be simulated, although there would have to be one level of "base reality" as Mr. Musk puts it. Of course, what's to say that this so-called 'ground level' is anything at all like what's in the realm of human experience?
Finally, it's worth noting that "reality isn't real" is not at all a new concept; this is more or less a technocentric take on an ancient, religious idea (see especially Samsara, Maya, the Tao Te Ching, or the Tibetan Book of the Dead).
There have been some interesting advances in scientific theory which tend to mirror the simulation hypothesis. One is the holographic principle which states that all information within a three dimensional volume may be encoded on a two-dimensional surface. This has important ramifications for black holes:
If you know much cosmology it also implies some unsettling things about our universe (is the observable universe inside a black hole, or to wit: is this evidence of reality being simulated? I.e. if all information about our universe is encoded on the cosmic horizon, when we look at the cosmic horizon are we looking at the machinery generating our reality?)
The theoretical physicist Dr. James Gates Jr. claims to have discovered a code within the equations of string theory; not just any code but one invented in the 1940's (watch the first four minutes):
This is also on-the-nose when it comes to the simulation hypothesis, as if reality ever were to be simulated by a computer at some point the code on which the simulation ran would have to be invented. What if that point has already occurred?
I strongly recommend taking this with a grain of salt, as none of this is 'scientific proof'; not in the way that we know Einstein was right about General Relativity. It's still interesting to consider.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
The Great Filter idea that the human mind cannot replicate itself, falls into this trap. There is an almost mystical something that the human brain has that can never be replicated. Each time a closer step is made this sort of argument moves the goalposts. Computers are the size of a house, you would need one the size of a city to be as amazing as a human brain. They may now be small but you will never beat a chess master. They did beat a chess master but there is something ineffable, something that is so difficult to understand about the human brain that I can't actually tell you what it is, you will never replicate that. Very flawed thinking.
Amisitics, starts with the ethical argument. Start thinking about history, that's how you work out what will happen in the future. We have never stopped using a technology because of ethical reasons. Some have been temporarily halted or slowed down but never stopped. Even when that happened research carried on in unregulated parts of the world. Our track record here is so poor we can safety say no technology will be stopped for ethical reasons. You mentioned nuclear power, the fact we have not blown up the world does not mean research has not marched onwards. What you are actually arguing here is that if we get AI that is the equivalent of human brains don't worry we won't blow the world up.
So for me both AI's with near human cognitive abilities will come and virtual worlds will come, but don't expect anything like this before another 50 years.
The idea that reality is a simulation, I have to ask what benefit is it to us to know if it is a simulation? Would you do anything differently, would science need to change its direction? Keep calm and carry on living.
An AI may decided some of us are superior to others, what about Olympic athletes or those with a very high IQ? I don't see any givens here. Technically we may end up with one "onboard" each of us rather like an implanted smartphone though more likely it would act as a terminal. The side of the issue you raise here is really hard to do more than conjecture, whereas will we get AI, that's just a matter of time as far as I can see.
One thing is constant, our dreams of a great technological future lie alongside fears of our technological future. That's been there at least since the industrial revolution, it won't change. For example I would say so far that "technological progress" has been the one key feature of our advancing civilisations allowing us to live like gods compared to the tribal societies we came from. But not everyone would agree with that, we have lost much on the way without a doubt.
To make up numbers for convenience, if the virtual universe can only be 1/10 the size and complexity of the original, then a virtual universe contained in another can only be 1/100 the size and complexity of the original. Chain this down enough times and you eventually hit a virtual universe in which it is impossible to embed another.
In order to have an infinite chain of virtual universes, they'd all have to be infinitely large and complex. Ours probably isn't, as physics would get in the way. Among other things, any fixed density of matter (say, one hydrogen atom per cubic light year) over a large enough volume that expands in all three dimensions will eventually constitute a black hole.
Anyway:
1.I'd probably carry on as I have been, as that seems right to me.
2. I'd probably implement a chat filter and use "Ignore" a lot.