Invention against the Inventor

File: 242 KB, 1920x1080, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Invention against the Inventor Wake Up Fri Oct 9 21:33:44 2015 No.7580225 [Reply] [Original]

An inventor creates a machine. This machine hooks up to a person's brain. The person is then mentally transported into a virtual reality. This reality follows all laws of the real world. 10 Seconds in the Real World equal 100 years in the virtual reality. Upon entering the VR the person is "born" and goes through the normal stages of life. No previous knowledge can be transfer INTO the VR. After "death" all knowledge learned inside will be transferred OUT to the person in the real world. The only information that can be transferred IN is the life goal of the individual. How they achieve it inside will rely solely on their choices and luck. Much like the real world. If you're Pythagoras and go inside the machine, your VR life may be different, but you will always invent the a^2+b^2=c^2 at some point.

If the inventor uses his own machine, he will have to invent the machine inside the machine. If this follows for multiple iterations, the inventor will never return to the "real world". Back in the real world a spectator would witness the inventor waking up after 10 seconds just like every other person. But the inventor would have invented and used the machine inside his machine ever single time he went inside his machine. Therefore, if you happen to create an inception device, don't use it yourself.

. Fri Oct 9 21:46:10 2015 No.7580242

Assuming he lives 100 years each time, and he invents/uses the machine, say... when he's 30 each time, how many lives will he live through after 10 seconds in the original timeline?

I'm pretty sure it's an absurdly high number, but surely one of you mathematicians can come up with a formula

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 9 21:53:46 2015 No.7580256 -Vr Follows all rules of the real world -10seconds of using the machine is 100years inside the machine. 10 seconds inside the VR is a split second of the real world. This continues to split each time the inventor goes inside the machine.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 9 22:06:26 2015 No.7580286 >>7580225 It would take him 10% of the amount of the amount of time it took him from birth to create the machine in real life.

Anonymous Fri Oct 9 22:14:23 2015 No.7580300

>>7580242
>If this follows for multiple iterations, the inventor will never return to the "real world".
That's incorrect. The inventor will go through an infinite amount of simulations in finite time.

>Assuming he lives 100 years each time, and he invents/uses the machine, say... when he's 30 each time, how many lives will he live through after 10 seconds in the original timeline?
Infinite amount of lives. 10 seconds is enough time for one full life in the first sim, which itself contains the 10 seconds of the second sim, etc, etc..

Anonymous Fri Oct 9 22:27:53 2015 No.7580323

Interesting premise. There are several models for this type of problem/model of behavior.

The most relevant one which comes to my mind is that of recursive functions in computer systems. The other model which comes to mind is a divergent series (math, related to limits/calculus)

Starting with the recursive model, in pseudocode, I think the situation would be modelled something like:

void use_inventor_machine_as_inventor() {
be_born();
pre_vt_machine_invention_events_blah();
invent_machine_invention();
SystemCall_spawn_new_process(use_inventor_machine_as_inventor());
post_vt_machine_experience_events_blah();
be_dead();
}

The above pseudocode is essentially a fork bomb-- new processes spawn much more rapidly than old processes complete. The system would hang as all computing resources (primarily memory) would be sucked up by new processes. The OS would crash. The Arizona Cardinals would win the superbowl, hailstones the size of Buicks would start raining down on Seattle, Kim Kardashian's ass would go flat, the Simpsons would be a funny TV show again, dogs and cats would live together in peace... MASS HYSTERIA!

Anonymous Fri Oct 9 22:28:54 2015 No.7580324

There is another version of the above pseudocode, one where the inventor does not return from the VT machine until he has completed his VT-life:

void use_inventor_machine_as_inventor() {
be_born();
pre_vt_machine_invention_events_blah();
invent_machine_invention();
use_inventor_machine_as_inventor();
post_vt_machine_experience_events_blah();
be_dead();
}

Unfortunately in this model, the original inventor would never return-- the above pseudocode is a recursive function without a "base case" or point of return. He would just keep going deeper and deeper.

In the end, his VT machine, however it worked (computer or some other simulation method) would have to have infinite simulation resources to keep up with the explosive generation of sub-VT-lives.

The other model is a divergent series in mathematics. I would love to write it out for you in summation notation, but I don't have a camera ready. Think about it as a Zeno's paradox, where each time Zenos reaches half the distance, his speed decreases by a factor of 100. This series does not converge at all.

Some people might laugh at this premise and call it ridiculous, but there are actually a lot of real world applications for the generalized model of "something-spawning-another-something". Everything from biology to economics to chemistry to computer theory. My advice to you would be to write these ideas down, and to try to work them out on paper-- to try to capture their essence by describing them in math terms or your own type of diagram or formalized logic. If you keep it up (like in a journal or something) you may discover one day that you have solved one of the world's great open problems.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 9 22:30:59 2015 No.7580331 I'm starting to confuse myself :(

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 9 22:36:09 2015 No.7580340 Sorry, I meant Zenos "Turtle and Achilles" paradox. Every time Achilles gets half the distance to the turtle, his speed slows by a factor of 100.

Anonymous Fri Oct 9 22:45:44 2015 No.7580361

>>7580324
This is what inspired my other thread about "if you think enough, you will know everything". I just think, then try to work ideas in a theory, and even if it's not possible in reality, it makes sense in my head even though some words I use to describe them take on a different meaning in my head. (Philosophy is a chalkboard; a scientist is the chalk.-Me RightNow,2015)

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 9 22:50:20 2015 No.7580366 >>7580225 What´s this bullshit, First: A machine like that need to be fucking advanced, like alien advanced or some shit, humans arent that smart to build that thing Therefore your entire teorem is wrong

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 9 22:51:53 2015 No.7580371 >>7580361 >if you think enough, you will know everything that´s bullshit, and i search your post and i didnt find it. Stop lying.

Anonymous Fri Oct 9 22:53:01 2015 No.7580373

>>7580324
-The inventor would always go deeper and deeper, but an innocent bystander would still give him a hi-five 10 seconds later in the real world.
-No idea how it would be powered, that's where the idea crumbles into reality. But for the sake of chasing the rabbit, it could be powered using the brain that it's simulating. Like a hallucination. A brain can lie to itself, so it can create and collect information from itself........ {why is there no /mindblown/? I'm new}

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 9 22:56:20 2015 No.7580377 >>7580371 >>7580008 Sorry bb

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 9 23:00:33 2015 No.7580384 >>7580366 It's theoretical. I apologize if you dislike "free thinkers"

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 9 23:32:59 2015 No.7580436 >>7580384 free thinkers sucks brah

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 9 23:50:00 2015 No.7580451 This sort of shit is what gives philosophy a bad name. You're playing with semantics and calling it philosophy like someone drawing with crayons and calling it architecture.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 9 23:55:19 2015 No.7580455 >>7580366 This is some highbrow trolling

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 00:00:15 2015 No.7580464

Hey OP, I solved your problem.

The inventor will wake up really confused in less than 10 seconds after the machine spits out "recursion too deep" (which is a pun btw).

If he designed the machine correctly, he won't have PTSD.

Even if the machine doesn't detect the infinite recursion, before the 10 seconds are over it will run out of memory and/or storage and the inventor will probably wake up with serious psychological trauma when it locks up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 00:01:33 2015 No.7580465 You would run out of memory and the system would crash. What that means is left as an exercise to the reader.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 00:02:58 2015 No.7580470 >>7580465 Why it would run out of memory?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 00:07:29 2015 No.7580479 The machine is not necessarily a modern computer. For example it could use the users brain for all we know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 00:08:42 2015 No.7580481 This thread is fucking stupid. This premise isn't some super high level philosophical dilemma. You're just a faggot who desperately wants to feel smart. Please go back to watching your numberphile videos

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 00:13:24 2015 No.7580485

>>7580470
Because memory in any physical system is finite and you're spawning infinite simulations of the entire universe, where each one operates faster than the universe containing it. This kind of computing power required to go just ONE level deep rivals that of our own universe. Given that this is supposed to be purely hypothetical buggery and the inventor never created a failsafe, I'm glad the fucker lives infinite lives and breaks physics. There's also a possibility that the technology that would allow this kind of thing could be prone to errors (especially since fuckhead couldn't even think of a failsafe condition) as the simulations approach infinity, causing a condition where he never invented the machine because he died before he could or something. Maybe the machine just fucking shoots you when you enter it.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 00:13:32 2015 No.7580488

>>7580470
First you need a computer that can render a virtual universe with nearly unlimited possibilities. Then it needs to render a machine of equal complexity running like a billion times faster, and so on. As time passed in the real world approaches 10, the size of the computer necessary to run the trillions of simulations would approach infinity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 00:18:10 2015 No.7580497 File: 8 KB, 180x240, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >This thread.

. Sat Oct 10 06:17:18 2015 No.7580908

>>7580300
But, it's not like he can stay inside forever to someone in the real world. He will have to come out at 10 seconds no matter what.
I really don't understand how it can be infinite. I think it can be very, very high, but all those split .0000000000000001 seconds will have to add up to 10 eventually.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 06:24:01 2015 No.7580913 holy shit what the fuck is going on here? mooods

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 06:44:08 2015 No.7580931 >>7580323 Underrated

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 07:58:04 2015 No.7581009

>>7580908
>all those split .0000000000000001 seconds will have to add up to 10 eventually.
Not mathematically, but that's because OP's premise couldn't exist in the real world., see:

>>7580485
>computing power required to go just ONE level deep rivals that of our own universe

...well, even if the VR world is much smaller than our universe, you can't have infinite levels of simulated VR in any finite "outermost" machine.

And don't forget that this:
>>7580225
>10 Seconds in the Real World equal 100 years in the virtual reality.
...is pure nonsense.
I know it's popular to believe you can live for years in a dream that only lasts hours in reality, but that's a myth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 08:00:38 2015 No.7581010 >>7581009 P.S.: There's also no guarantee he'll invent the device each time around.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 09:58:20 2015 No.7581114 >>7580908 If that's the case, it would mean there is a "Planck length" but for time instead.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 10:47:51 2015 No.7581146

>>7581114
We're not dealing with actual time in this case, though, but simulated time experienced by a brain that's somehow been accelerated to be able to experience virtual reality faster than actual reality. Maybe that "length" would be a result of the limitations of overclocking the human brain because you not only need a machine that can simulate reality exactly, multiple times (potentially infinite), but you also need a brain that's capable of processing at increasingly greater speeds as the inventor "goes deeper and deeper". I would think the brain would overheat.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 11:42:57 2015 No.7581221 >>7581009 >Not mathematically, but that's because OP's premise couldn't exist in the real world., see: Okay okay, what if we assumed it did have infinite memory or whatever and just set that discussion aside for another time?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 14:32:01 2015 No.7581481 >>7581221 Then the human brain couldn't keep up with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 14:35:04 2015 No.7581493 File: 126 KB, 480x608, 1442154599016.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7581114 Hurr duur planck time is the minimum time because the universe is quantized

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 14:44:12 2015 No.7581509 >>7581481 Assume it can.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 15:27:04 2015 No.7581584

That's a cool paradox. The inventor would keep going deeper, but his assistant would witness the inventor "waking up" in ten seconds flat. The machine would empty, but there would an infinite number of sub dimensions existing "elsewhere". The most paradoxical part is when you realize that in every sim the inventor will wake up in 10 seconds but still go deeper into another sim. Lmao it's the paradox of paradoxes.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 15:30:41 2015 No.7581590

>>7581114
There already is I quote
"The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ï¿½quantum of timeï¿½, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds."

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 15:59:47 2015 No.7581661

>>7581509
Okay, 10 seconds is 100 years in the first iteration. There are 3.15*10^7 seconds in a year, so you get a ratio of 1 second in real time for every 3.15*10^8 seconds in the simulation. Written another way, that's 3.17*10^-9 seconds in real time for every 1 second that passes in the simulation.

There is a problem.

If this is a PERFECT simulation of the universe, then every Plank second in the universe must be simulated. One Plank second in the virtual universe would be the equivalent of 3.17*10^-9 Plank seconds in the real world.

Since that doesn't make sense, we have to assume that the simulation isn't perfect. That means the smallest amount of time in the simulation would be 3.15*10^8 Plank seconds for every Plank second that passes in the real world.

I think you can see the problem. Each successive simulation has a longer virtual Plank second wrt the Plank second in the simulation above it. You'll quickly approach the point where a virtual Plank second is longer than the entire life of the inventor, and the cascade ends.

I don't feel like doing the math, so figure out how many lifetimes that is yourself.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 16:03:21 2015 No.7581673

>>7581509
This "thought experiment" takes a lot of stupid assumptions and is getting to the point of over-reduction of a complex problem that has no basis in reality. Assuming the human brain can somehow accelerate to think as fast as a machine, somehow with infinite memory and computation power, can churn out virtual realities within virtual realities where the time within increases by a factor of (I don't really feel like doing the calculation right now, but it's big) and is somehow experienced by the user as "in real time", then the loop will never terminate inside the machine and outside 10 seconds would pass and the inventor would drop dead of a heart attack, while shitting, pissing, and cumming, because of the experience.

I swear if you say "assume that doesn't happen" I will fucking find you and jerk off in your eye so you can finally see where I'm coming from with how absurdly masturbatory this all is.

H Sat Oct 10 16:50:09 2015 No.7581807

>>7580908
>I think it can be very, very high, but all those split .0000000000000001 seconds will have to add up to 10 eventually.
No, because each time he uses the machine, the time extends even more. Lets say time passes just 10x slower in the machine. He will create the machine in the simulation, which will slow by another factor of 10, and then another factor of 10 in the next simulation, and so on. This sum will never add up to the point where he wakes up.
Think about the infinite sum 1 + 1/10 + 1/100 ...; this will clearly never get larger than 10/9.
>>7581114
There is; it's called the Planck time. It is the time it takes light to travel one Planck length. There is no reason to believe that this is the smallest unit of time, though. The Planck scale is the scale at which quantum gravity must be accounted for, because it is at this scale that the Compton wavelength is comparable to the Schwarzchild radius. The size of a string in string theory is of order 1 Planck length, so it is obvious that at this point the stringy nature of matter is relevant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 16:53:17 2015 No.7581813 >>7581673 Assume that doesn't happen.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 18:03:40 2015 No.7581912

>>7581673
The loop will terminate in 10 seconds irl.
The loop will terminate after 100 years for any other user besides the inventor. Practical applications such as learning, solving social issues, war strategies, and most importantly having sex because its the only way youll ever experience it. (Other anons excluded from roast)

The paradox arises when the inventor whose life goal was to contruct this machine uses it.

As for the "not enough memory" many nonAs are saying, you have to remember that after 10second the user wakes up. Example:
{REAL LIFE}
Inventor uses machine
Enter Sim
Wait 10 seconds
Wake up
{SIM 1}
Inventor uses machine
Enters sim
Wait 10 seconds
Wake up
Live rest of life
If death by any means
Return to REAL LIFE
{SIM 2}
Inventor uses machine
Enters sim
Wait 10 seconds
Wake up
Live rest of life
If death by any means
Return to SIM 1
{SIM 3}
Etcetcetc
---
Eventually one sim will collapse, and that "memory" (if u insist on assuming there is) will be freed and can be applied to an active sim.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 08:41:40 2015 No.7583028 Something like this was routine in the world of the book Altered Carbon. If you don't mind epic bloodbaths that rivals the flow of the Amazon river you might like this book - the fist in a series.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 09:30:01 2015 No.7583071 >>7583028 Thanks for the suggestion. Never read it.

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 16:22:24 2015 No.7583657

The recursion is self terminating due to the random factor mentioned in the OP. Even though according to the OP the person entering the machine always completes their life goal, they can die immediately after. Say the inventor built the machine and gets hit by a meteor, all iterations will terminate relatively quickly. This is a mostly probabilistic reality with ONE deterministic outcome where some of the probabilities must be fudged in order to obtain the desired outcome, but once that condition is met, probability takes over. The likelihood that the inventor dies immediately after entering the machine goes up drastically the longer he's in the primary simulation. One version of him is bound to die prematurely, and once that happens, the subject exits into the parent reality until he dies. He may have lived 1000 lives by then, or he may have lived 2. It will eventually stop, though, because the termination condition exists and probability (luck) is used to determine how and when he invents the thing and steps into it.

Based on the initial conditions, as the simulation count nears infinite, the likelihood of the current level of simulation terminating approaches infinity.

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 17:05:21 2015 No.7583719

Eventually there will be a life where he is prevented from inventing the machine, i.e. he gets murdered, he gets in a car accident, SOMETHING and the inventor never bothers go back into the machine after he is forced awake that one time, thus breaking the cycle and allowing him to wake up

>>	Mr. Zodi Sun Oct 11 18:18:35 2015 No.7583807 Isn't this Russell's paradox ?

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 21:40:29 2015 No.7584074

>>7583719
OP suggests that although biography my vary, the life goal will always be achieved. Like your destined or fated to do one specific thing that determines your specifc person and so your sim spawn has some sort of instinct as what to do in lnside the sim. Life goal is to learn? Perfect subject for the machine. You live you learn you diawake. You could learn so many things within an hour in the real world of using the machine many times.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 21:43:35 2015 No.7584079 >>7583807 No idea, if you could explain the similarities it would help alot. Looked it up on wiki and dont understand. I thought of this scenerio while bored / dont know how to prove im OP so disregard this i guess.

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 22:07:34 2015 No.7584099

>>7580225
Paradoxes that emerge from the definition are shit. like Zeno's Paradox and all the other dipshits hailed for epic thought problems. recursively infinite processes are impossible only approximate-able. In the Real world where he makes the VR the machine will be based on the current technology. ie the upper bound which allows the VR to simulate more life seconds per RL second will depend entirely on hardware.

Case 1) time is expanded to the maximum of the devices capabilities.
The inventor invents a device within VR that doesnt speed up his the sensory input execution at all. in fact it will slow down as there is now computational requirements for the VR wrapper and or virtual machine within the VR.

Case 2) the original VR is not the maximum speed up. The inventor may be able to hop into a few speed up iterations but will eventually hit the same dead end provided by Case 1

You and your paradox are stupid

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 22:16:53 2015 No.7584109

>>7581912
>>7583657

I like these anons' idea. There is a nonzero chance of the guy dying in simulation and so the simulation is guaranteed to end after a finite number of iterations.

Also, this could make a good book or movie or something. Just a little tweaking: have some way for the inventor to share information with himself, and so he can somehow tell himself that he shouldn't invent the machine; and a love interest to drive the story. Lets say... the inventor almost falls in love and lives happily ever after in every iteration but invents the machine just before that. He leaves clues for himself and must decipher them as they get more and more complex. Meanwhile, the audience isn't sure there are multiple simulations and are gradually told what is happening. The story ends with the inventor living his life in every iteration backwards and at the very end he lives his last life, knowing exactly how to make it the most peaceful and beautiful he can.

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 22:48:25 2015 No.7584175

>>7584109
How does he know its his last life? If no memories are transfered into each sim then even when he wakes in the real world he wouldnt know if its just another sim. The movie would probably end with him going insane and commiting suicide hoping to reach the last "sim"

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 22:49:13 2015 No.7584177

>>7583807
>Is this Russell's Paradox?

No. It is a version of Zeno's paradox. Zeno's paradox occurs when the Limit is equal to the length. It is an inductive paradox in that the limit is not reached, and so any computations on fractions of the limit are infinite. In Zeno's case the arrow never hits Zeno because the limit IS Zeno, so even though the arrow travels half the distance in half the time, the total distance is never reached in the premise (the limit IS Zeno), and so any fraction of the limit also cannot reach Zeno, whereas any real arrow would travel past that point when it hit Zeno and killed his ass.

This is the same thing. The limit is 10 minutes, but the inventor's life extends beyond the point where he wakes up.
This puzzle has the added twist that the limit is repeated in the simulation, so that any change to the limit of when the inventor was awakened would also translate to a shorter limit in the simulation.
This makes this a mixed paradox: inductive and semantic.

10/10 paradox. Will use in class.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 22:53:46 2015 No.7584187 >>7584175 Oh fuck yeah. That's what I like to hear. I like it. That could be the twist at the end.

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 22:55:12 2015 No.7584192

>>7584099
Hardware hardware hardware. You think the future will be limited by its hardware. Heres a paradox for you fag: your comment and your thought process is limited by modernity.
Decades ago we sat in darkness when the sun went down. We invented candles. Now people were up longer.
Decades ago people paddled their boats.
Then we powered boats with steam.
We also flew around under hot air balloons. People theorized about the future and came up with steampunk. To hell that went.
We invented computers. People theorized about the future and came up with aliens and AI super computers. To hell that went.
We invented biological computers. People theorized about the future and came up with oh fuck wait yea i got carried away there. Hope you understand, if you dont then go back, reread, and think harder.

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:01:17 2015 No.7584205

>>7584099
"Dipshits hailed for epic thought processes" You seem to be getting emotional there, and /sci/ has no space* for that. (No pun intended.)

If you would take the time to notice, this is 4chan and OP decided to publish his/her idea/theory/thoughtexperiment on an anonymous site. Therefore this becomes a public resource and nobody has the right to claim it as their own. Forevermore, citations will read "Invention against the inventor paradox by Anon".
In fact, i am the OP but have no way of proving it do i? (Actually still new lmao)

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:04:58 2015 No.7584214 >>7584074 Will statistically there must be at least one where then he invents the machine but dies before using it This would die awake him and the chain would break

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:08:35 2015 No.7584219

>>7584177
The part that really turns the brain into confetti is when you realize:
-1.every person besides the inventor can effectively use the machine with no problems or risks.
-2.a bystander will witness the inventor waking up in 10 seconds as if nothing happened.
The second point can also be used to explain old existing theories relating to "The only thing that actually exists and is real is you (your own consious)". This is because the inventors conscious would always be sent down into another sim with a memory wipe as he goes "down/deeper". In the real world when the inventor wakes up it would pretty much be a perfect clone with matching memories but it would likely not be the same conscience.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:10:39 2015 No.7584223 >>7580225 >If the inventor uses his own machine, he will have to invent the machine inside the machine. What if the invention of the machine was only a means to an end, and the inventors life goal?

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:12:19 2015 No.7584225

>>7584214
This is true if you take only "creating the machine" as the life goal. But when the inventor USES the machine in the real world, as assuming he uses it first to be the guy to go down in history books then the life goal would include using the machine. As long as the inventor doesnt use the machine first in the real world and his only recognized achievement would be creating it then it would be safe.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:12:30 2015 No.7584228 >>7580225 >If the inventor uses his own machine, he will have to invent the machine inside the machine. What if the invention of the machine was only a means to an end, and not the inventors life goal?

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:24:54 2015 No.7584253

>>7584228
Einstein made many things. Famous for e=mc^2 (most popular)!
Pythagorus a^2+b^2=c^2 (widely known)
Mr.Inventor made the inception machine as a means for education and experimentation. (Only thing he invented)
Mr.Inventor made the inception machine and was the first man to use it. Like neil armstrong and first one on the moon. (OK MAYBE HE DIDNT MAYBE HE DID THIS IS NOT THE THREAD FOR THE MOON ISSUE. I USED IT SOLELY FOR EXAMPLE. Thanks for bearing with me)

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:51:58 2015 No.7584284 >>7580225 thanks for the interesting read anon. time to flush now

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:53:44 2015 No.7584290 >>7584253 There must have been a reason he built the machine other than to be known as the guy who built the machine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 23:55:46 2015 No.7584293 >>7580225 You can't just go to infinity like that, you're going to overflow the stack.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 00:12:52 2015 No.7584317 >>7584293 Weve established its beyond modern computers. Also the first stack would be cleared up while a deeper process would be running. Remember he wakes in 10s and dies within 100y.

Anonymous Mon Oct 12 00:17:34 2015 No.7584323

>>7584290
Its the end result he is most known for. Like emc2. It what many would consider "endgame of life". "The final boss". If the inventor manages to change his fate/destiny/goal and his real purpose was to use his machine so he can ULTIMETELY create the dankest meme ever then in the first sime he would make the dankest meme ever and then die and return ti real life. Once again, the paradox arises when the inventor decides to test run his own device. If you invented a stargate like from stargateSG-1 wouldnt you want to be the first human being to use it?

Anonymous Mon Oct 12 00:50:52 2015 No.7584370

>>7584323
>The only information that can be transferred IN is the life goal of the individual.
This was your original stipulation.

What he is most known for is irrelevant to his driving force. The machine would just be a means to an end. A mere tool. Nothing more.

The guy who invented a wrench didn't invent a wrench so that he could be known as the guy who invented the wrench. Rather, he wanted to build things.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 22:43:40 2015 No.7586048 File: 64 KB, 1024x706, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Any visual thinkers out there? Here you go.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 22:44:46 2015 No.7586050 File: 111 KB, 1024x706, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Part 2

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 22:45:57 2015 No.7586053 File: 126 KB, 1024x706, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] <????

Anonymous Mon Oct 12 23:27:54 2015 No.7586110

What's ironic though is that the "full loop" is actually FINITE and the inventors never ending loop is INFINITE.

When the idea of 1 is infinite and 0.99999repeated is a finite number due to calculators and their restrictions.

Does this mean that we have everything mixed up? What if circles, squares, pyramids, spheres, and cubes are the most complex objects and shapes in the universe and something such as a tesserae the is the simplest? (According to the universe)

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 23:29:14 2015 No.7586113 >>7586110 *tesseract

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 00:17:11 2015 No.7586172 the only problem is that a virtual reality isn't actually a new universe, and no machine (unless it has an infinite amount of power) can have enough processing power to create a new universe. TLDR this post is stupid and dumb because not possable

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 00:27:20 2015 No.7586192 Sounds like one of Ito's mangas

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 00:51:50 2015 No.7586238 >>7586172 What if each universe is simpler than the one that is generating it? There's also the possibility that some of these universes can be turned off.

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 00:59:22 2015 No.7586244

>>7580225
>The only information that can be transferred IN is the life goal of the individual. How they achieve it inside will rely solely on their choices and luck. Much like the real world.
Then there would be some iteration where the inventor failed to invent the machine and initiate the next iteration.

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 01:12:41 2015 No.7586258

>>7580225
>Machine simulates a universe inside a universe.
>Such a machine would need multiple bits of memory to store all quantum information about every particle in the universe
>This would require the machine to have more particles than there are particles in the universe
>Therefore, such a machine can't exist, and this hypothetical situation could never be real, so there is no point in discussing it except to prove that 1 = .99999...

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 01:16:44 2015 No.7586260 >>7586258 Each universe can be a dumbed down version of the original.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 01:21:40 2015 No.7586266 Cool loop bro, can you serve me a burger too?

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 01:52:45 2015 No.7586311

>>7586260
Not if the OPs original stipulations hold any weight. Say it does work like that, though: then we eventually run into errors that could ultimately result in the termination of the loop. In any case, based on the random factor, the inventor will die before entering the machine in an iteration eventually, resulting in the termination of the loop.

If the life goal was to enter infinite simulations, however, then the person will never complete the goal and will enter the simulation multiple times. The only way for that loop to terminate would be for him to die in VR_0 or higher. The probability of that happening goes down orders of magnitude, even in VR_1 because he can just start a new chain for 100 years minus the time it took to invent the thing in the first place, and then reenter the sim in VR_0 when he dies in VR_1, starting the cycle anew.

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 10:58:12 2015 No.7586759

For those that dislike because its "not real" well neither is a monkey typing at a typewriter because the monkey would die also the monkey would get tired also yea just stop you look stupid.

As for "he would die before using it":
Assume his curiosity grows as to what the machine is really like because he built it but hasnt used it yet. So when he uses it he fulfills that curiosity which would become the life goal. His goal changes the second he uses the machine but this is only tru efor the inventor because his life accomplishments and dreams revolve around the invention of the machine.

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 11:02:16 2015 No.7586768

>>7586311
But that insists that he is killed within the 10 seconds of ***using*** the machine. In VR_0 aka Real Life he will wake up after 10 seconds meanwhile in theory "he" will continue on entering more sims. (He would basically split and his conscience would be in the VRs while nobody knows what his physical real life person would do. Information is exported OUT so he would have gone through infinity and known everything. Here is where the capacities of a brain CAN be used as an argument.)

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 23:16:25 2015 No.7587897 Why is this not on the wikipedia list of paradoxes? It should be.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 23:35:11 2015 No.7587916 >>7580225 >The only information that can be transferred IN is the life goal of the individual. So as long as your life goal isn't inventing the inception device, you'll be fine.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 23:36:12 2015 No.7587920 >>7587897 Because it's not a paradox >a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 23:38:41 2015 No.7587923 >>7587920 >wakes up in 10s while >in sim for infinity >wakes up in 10s in every sim >always goes deeper Seems contradictory to me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 23:42:05 2015 No.7587927 >>7587923 That's not a contradiction. If you're talking about how time dilates every level down and therefore 10 real seconds will never pass for you, that is literally Zeno's Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 23:47:36 2015 No.7587934 >>7587927 So are numbers wrong? Should we mathimatically represent numerical values with shapes instead of numbers?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 23:49:16 2015 No.7587937 >>7587934 What in all FUCK are you even talking about right now

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 23:57:06 2015 No.7587947

>>7580225
>>7580464

I like this take on it. Interesting. I'm curious as to at what point in the 10 seconds will the machine shit out in the top level world, given that the only limitation is that the length of a full simulation (10 sec) at the nth-sublevel is not shorter then one clock speed.

Since this is some wonky-ass advanced tech, let's assume the clock speed is 1 THz.

The inventor also makes the invention at 1/3 his total life span (100 years).

I'm guessing you could start with t=10-(((2/3)^n)(10)) where n is the sublevel of world you are in (the real world being sublevel 0, the first simulation world sublevel 1, the second simulation world being sublevel 2, etc.) and t is the time in the real world which passes since the simulation began.

Taking the derivative of this in respect to n gives you the change in real world time over seconds and is (dt/dn)=10*ln(3/2)*(2/3)^n which evaluates to n=71.599 if (dt/dn)=10^-12.

Rounding down we have that he could only participate down to the 71st sublevel, where his machine would consequently not be able to work, and the simulation would end shoot him back to the top world.

This would take roughly 9.999999999997 seconds or 3 picoseconds less then 10 seconds.

Interestingly, living 71 lives with 30 years per life is only like living 2130 years, which I don't think would be to the point of PTSD inducing, not taking in to account any individual experiences he could have had which would cause PTSD.

I think at a higher processing speed though, say the potential physical upper limit of 1/(plank time), where he would go through 249 iterations equaling 7470 years, things may get a little worse.

I was expecting a higher upper limit of years experienced then 7470. I may have done something wrong here, that seems so little for such a delving process.

Ignore typos, my phone hates me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 00:00:53 2015 No.7587954 >>7580225 BLACK HOLE SUN WON'T YOU COME AND WASH AWAY THE RAIN

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 00:03:47 2015 No.7587958

>>7587947
I realized I assumed that ending the simulation would throw him out to the start directly. If it just threw him out of the bottom level, then a function for the years experienced in terms or sublevels, y=30+100n (30 years to start with, 100 at each lower level), gets you y=24,930 years...
So that sounds a good bit worse to endure...

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 00:09:04 2015 No.7587968

>>7587947
Wow this is beautifull. You forgot to calculate only the instances that are overlapping. *Remember that sim1 will wake up from the machine after 10 seconds and die within 100 years. For example (without calculations) when he enters the 82nd sim, sim one (VR_1) would have been cleared up and returned to the real world. The "memory"(as u insist) would be cleared from sim1 and available for another sim. Who can do the math to find how many stacked sims itd take to crash as time would become shorter/longer?

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 00:12:48 2015 No.7587972

>>7587947
Because SIM1 doesnt run forever. He wakes in 10s and lives out his 100y, dies, and wakes up in the real world. Memory available.

Sim2 wake in 10s, lives his 100y, dies, wakes in a new copy of SIM1 where he lives the exact same life that he already finished in SIM1 and dies to wake in the real world. Memory available.

Do you follow anon?

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 00:19:09 2015 No.7587983

>>7587968
>>7587972
I'm slightly confused on what you're asking with the stacked sims and all, but I'm pretty tired, so it may just be me not thinning correctly. I would love to contribute again tomorrow, I just don't want to do more math tonight because I would rather not fall asleep driving tomorrow morning and kill myself or others. I'll keep this thread pinned and check it out tomorrow.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 00:36:22 2015 No.7588009 File: 91 KB, 900x600, Butters.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You can skip the paradox by commiting suicide an infinite amount of times. Maybe thats the meaning of life?

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 00:41:09 2015 No.7588015
File: 551 KB, 1500x1500, 1436317835480.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7580225
There's a fundamental flaw in this kind of invention.

The computing power required simulate the whole universe would be too much. You would need as much matter that makes up the real universe to simulate the fake one.

But let's also say you only simulate space time and a couple of galaxies.. you would need less matter to do this, but the computing power would still need to be tremendous (pretty much impossible). To make a simulation within a simulation, you would need matter from the real universe to give the first simulation the power to make a second simulation.

In simple terms, you can't get matter from nowhere. The power needed to do what you posted is simply too much.

We humans don't have enough knowledge to know for sure if something like this is possible, but we have some strong evidence that it's not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 00:44:05 2015 No.7588018 you must have one smart ass brain then, not only do you have to completly recreate all laws of physics you have to do that an infinite amount of times

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 07:56:36 2015 No.7588442 >>7588015 >Dreams

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 11:44:47 2015 No.7588737

>>7587983
If sublevel 1 is a fraction of level one then sublevel 2 is a fraction of sublevel one in terms of time. While it never become complete (like .33333 and a idealogical third) it will have to end when the upper/controlling sim ends. If sublevel44(aka sim44) ends then all levels below, ex Sublevel 49 will have to end as well and sublevel 409 will end prematurely by fractions of a 'time'. The question is, how many sublevels will be created by the time sublevel 1 reaches its end? (He will use machine for 10 seconds and continue his life while a "clone" would live in a sub dimension at a relatively bent time and his clone's clone in yet another subset.)

The answer really varies depending on where you stand alongside his real conscience.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 11:48:14 2015 No.7588742 >>7588737 There has to be some sort of point where 0.33333333333... cant get any closer to a third. The last "gap" in which we will nice nice enough and "give". I believe this is the case because theres a planck lengtg for distance and time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 11:49:35 2015 No.7588745 >>7588015 It only has to simulate what he sees or percieves. If a tree falls and nobody hears it, it doesnt need to make a sound.

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 11:54:12 2015 No.7588755

>>7580225
>If this follows for multiple iterations, the inventor will never return to the "real world".

A stackoverflow would occur once you attempt to split time too finely and depending on your "error handling" - you either go back, or are destroyed in your last reality.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math