Programmers...Could it be done in 6 Days if Virtual Reality?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
There are concepts about a virtual universe that simply wouldn't change regardless of the complexities involved. For example, virtual time will remain the same.

That is actually a great argument AGAINST our universe being a virtual reality. Time actually is NOT constant in this universe. It slows down the closer you are to an object of great mass. Programming something like that would be exponentially more difficult because you'd have to adjust the perspective of the passage of time for millions of different people at the same time. You'd essentially have time flowing differently in all places in the universe. Sure an all powerful super genius that knows all could do it, but it doesn't seem logical at all to program something like that, which is completely unnecessary. Programming is about efficiency. The less algorithms and complications you have the better the software runs. A good programmer would not add unnecessary bulk to a program, which is why our universe being a virtual reality is extremely unlikely.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

It´s a theory, not factual proof. I noticed you posting statements lately as they are proofen right. Maybe this time, here and now you can show the "factual proof". Most people here have seen the vids on ATS for years...

The sad thing is that to many folks, "factual proof" means, a guy in a youtube video said so, or some guy wrote it in an ancient book. Many folks don't even understand that mathematical theories are not scientific theories and refer to such "quantum" concepts as if they are 100% proven fact, yet deny all kinds of other fields of science that ARE proven (ie evolution, relativity, etc).

originally posted by: Char-Lee
Not on subject but can you tell me, when i play Everquest, I have a healer character that is supposed to heal my avatar Wizard in the game. Sometimes out of the blue she runs away and will take off across the zone and leave me to die :-)

is this part of the program, a flaw or a problem in the particular area or zone in the game? Just very curious.

My guess would be that the mob you are fighting is attacking the healer and not you, so perhaps that's making them run away to save themselves. The other possibility is that the mob is too high of a level for you and the healer recognizes you don't have a chance? I'm not sure though, I've never played EQ so I'm not familiar with those mechanics. I've only played WOW and SWTOR.

a reply to: Barcs

Are you trying to say they are NEVER used?

Actually I am not trying to say anything really, just asking, just thinking. Thank you for your added thoughts.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Pure speculation here but IMO -- most of our complicated choices could be reduced to two or three choices in actuality and few would notice the difference. Party politics is a fantastic example of this phenomenon.

Most humans only imagine they are truly complex. Their choices can generally be mapped over time to a simple "IF, AND or OR" gate and most of the complexity will be inferred through subtext.

a reply to: Char-Lee

oh boy.

Day in the original hebrew apparently has several different meanings.

And of course those meaning are argued and written about ad nauseum.

Just google yom.

I don't think that day was a literal 24 hour day as we know it. Because how can there have been a day if earth wasn't created yet.

a reply to: grey580

I don't think that day was a literal 24 hour day as we know it. Because how can there have been a day if earth wasn't created yet.

Hum, well I think day and night are mentioned after the first day or act of creation so there was an earth.

Creation Day 1 (Genesis 1:1-5)
God created the heavens and the earth.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Pure speculation here but IMO -- most of our complicated choices could be reduced to two or three choices in actuality and few would notice the difference. Party politics is a fantastic example of this phenomenon.

This is an incorrect way to look at it. Humans ALWAYS have the option of many choices for any given situation. The pull of society may distill a decision down to two visible choices, but there is ALWAYS more choices in the background. For instance, your example of party politics. It may appear that your only choices are Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Well that is just on the surface. The Republican party is so disjointed currently that you could have wildly different stances between another Republican and both still be a Republican. Independent parties are rather numerous and run the full range of the political spectrum. Plus new political ideologies are invented quite often. OR you could just be apolitical.

Most humans only imagine they are truly complex. Their choices can generally be mapped over time to a simple "IF, AND or OR" gate and most of the complexity will be inferred through subtext.

This doesn't apply to JUST humans, but all life in the universe.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree that humans generally (and apparently) have the option to make choices from a more complex array, however -- I would argue that they simply don't (most of the time).

In hindsight -- we often believe our own choices are / were complex, when they quite often are / were not.

Again -- most of our decisions can be mapped to "IF / AND / OR" and the result is functionally identical to a simple array, no matter how complex we imagine our motivations were / are in retrospect.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree that humans generally (and apparently) have the option to make choices from a more complex array, however -- I would argue that they simply don't (most of the time).

It's not about the choices we limit ourselves to. It is about all POSSIBLE choices. Believe it or not, you make choices all the time whether you know it or not. While sitting here on the compute reading this, you could decide to ignore it and go outside, or you could read it then write a response, or read it and not write a response for instance. And there are even more decisions that are going unmentioned, and that is BEFORE we start getting out of your normal routine.

In hindsight -- we often believe our own choices are / were complex, when they quite often are / were not.

Again -- most of our decisions can be mapped to "IF / AND / OR" and the result is functionally identical to a simple array, no matter how complex we imagine our motivations were / are in retrospect.

I don't agree. If it were that easy, we would have been able to build some sort of primitive AI already, but look at computer game AI. It's so easy to trick the AI into screwing up, even on the hardest difficulty levels. There is more to it than just "if / and / or". BTW, you just combined two distinct programming concepts there. It's an "if/then" statement or an "and" or "or" statement.

And see there is the trick, determining the proper way to code the "if/then" statement. For instance, choosing something to eat. IF hungry, then eat ...? I could put hamburger, pizza, french fries, or pasta OR I could say McDonald's, Burger King, Chipotle, etc. That is what I'm getting at. If you are going to code that "or" statement between all those different options, then you need a way to resolve it. I can't write a program that says:

if (hungry) then
eat(mcdonalds or burger king or chipotle or five guys)

without determining how to choose between the or statements. Plus the operators sandwiching an "or" statement can only equal "1" or "0". McDonalds != 1 or 0.

Like I said, even though we may not utilize the full range of our decisions, that doesn't mean we shouldn't account for them. Plus even when we simplify our range of decisions, it still RARELY boils down to a simple series of if/then statements.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Adding to what krazysh0t described, there is a solution to this step it´s called objective balancing where preferences are valued against each others. However the real problem is how to initiate this.
If you think of babys, you influence and teach them until a certain age when they become more self aware.
But a self learning software would not need to do most of the tasks we learn througout our lives. Everything that has to do with a body. Sensation, relaxation, concept of time etc.

It´s like teaching another species. You need a language interface at least. That´s where you start messing around again by defining adjectives, verbs etc and how to detect them and filter out a meaning. One could say it´s like teaching a child how to talk and so its not like hardcoding, another one could say it´s not true/strong AI when you have to define something for it.

The whole term AI is so misused. There are several categories and concepts revolving around the term AI and how it´s defined. I started to write a thread about that but it´s not finished and in a txt file on my desktop. It´s not an easy topic and it has several branches and layers to explain. Not easy in terms of most of the people who are not into it show signs of fundamentaly wrong understanding or are ignoring the deeper facts. "Facts" they learned have to be unlearned first.

Most so called science journalists that really should know better, chose to forget/ignore/do not know that you need a prefix before the term "artifical intelligence". In most of the cases where they write AI the prefix used would be "strong" or "true". But then most of those cases only talk about computational intelligence CI while mixing it with whats called (weak/false) Human Artifical Intelligence. Thats an AI, based on the human thinking model, not self aware.
(explained real bad by me now, lacking time and words).

There is still no public anounced true/strong AI yet. They mostly consist of advanced&trained CIs with rulesets.
That is, if you decide to go with the common non-hyped definitions established over years.