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

I was reading a thread here tonight that reminded me of a concept I came up with years ago, that has exponentially changed as time goes by. First this was originally an idea I had back in the early days of computers, when computer graphics were first starting. The basic PC had a resolution of 300x200 and had 4 colors. Admittedly this did not give you very good pictures, but since we did not know any better we were appropriately awed. So this idea started to form in my head that if you wrote a computer program to systematically cycle the pixels through all the possible configurations you would eventually display every picture possible on the PC. This was a very large number but back then it was a bit more manageable. Basically you had 300x200 pixels that could be 4 colors. In today’s world on the PC you have much larger numbers. The latest video cards can support 2560x1600 pixels at 281.5 trillion colors per pixel, so you can see the number of pictures possible to display is not even comprehensible any more. (not that it was comprehensible even at the early stages of PC graphics)

If you were to sequentially display each of these pictures you would eventually see every picture that could ever be made. You would see your future, your past, the surface of every planet and moon in the universe. You would see everything that ever could happen in every alternate reality you care to imagine. You would see these things with every possible combination of clothes, every possible combination of people, and every combination of any variable you wish to mention.

At fist people I tell this to look at me as say “So what is your point?” The true scope of this does not sink in for several days, usually after I explain the program needed to display all the pictures is a simple task to write. Just a few lines of code and you can see everything that ever was, will be, and will never be. The fact still remains that if you write this program, and set it in motion it will still take an eternity to display every picture. Even at 1 second per picture it will be longer than the history of the universe. So the odds of you ever actually seeing a picture that makes sense, and is not just a screen full of static, are so small you may as well say zero. But you will indeed be able to know everything.

This is a very interesting idea. When I was bored a few months ago I made an application that could edit each single pixel on a canvas sized to my choosing. I was trying all sorts of equations for coloring the pixels. It resulted in a few really cool mathematical looking pictures. I didn't try anything random though. It would be ultra-simple to convert what I have into this all-knowing application. I might actually do it just for the sheer hell of it.

You fail to realize that the computer can only generate images with commands and data. As of now we would only be able to produce as many images as there are pixels allowing for colors and as many colors are available for these pixels. To generate this quantity of images one would need an enormous amount of processing power.
Whose going to sort through literally infinite and continually increasingly numbers of images.

Honestly, it would be easier to figure out quantum mechanics and provide certainty to the heisenberg uncertainty principle than it would be to wait until the computer had unlimited image generation, colors, and pixels.

If we perfected the uncertainty principle then a computer could be used to recreate reality as we know it (only view portions to decrease processing necessity) then trace backwards or forwards on the chemical reaction simulation to view and hear what was happening, what was being said, true actions, or what might happen based on alterations and decisions manually input into the system. This system could be used to basically watch video of the past and manipulate the future.

A while back there was a quantum computer thread that mentioned Lockheed Martin purchasing usage and I think right to a speculative quantum computer. Someone asked why they would spend 10million dollars on unproven tech like this, I didn't get the chance to answer. The answer is.....

To be able to predict, view, and manipulate the future.10 mil is a drop in the bucket to this company, a risk like this 10 mil is well worth the loss if it does turn out to work.

Also, with randomization of pixels and colors like this, almost all of the images will be jumbled colors. Most will probably look a brownish color due to the eye not being able to distinguish individual pixels. The colors will just blend most of the time. Brown is not a guess, its the color that you get when mixing all primary colors together. This random image program is really going to aggregate you when you realize that to get an image with any real structure you'll need probably millions of attempts at a random image. To give the images structure would require some non-random sequence or a complex recognition program running along side it to delete unrecognizable images. Even then, you'll have so many images to sort through that are distinguishable, somewhat.

reply to post by DarkSarcasm

Also, with randomization of pixels and colors like this, almost all of the images will be jumbled colors. Most will probably look a brownish color due to the eye not being able to distinguish individual pixels.

Well we will find out soon enough. Give me another 20 minutes or so. I had to have something to eat.

Well it certainly is possible, now more than ever.

I admit I had thought of this quite some time ago, and dismissed it as impossible (or at least improbable). However today your post let me reevaluate this idea and I think there is a possible and probable way of doing this.

For those who don't know here is a link on color depth .

(yes I got the images from there)

The image below is 8 bit (256 colors/bit)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0400ebd2bf6c.png[/atsimg]

And this one is 24 bit (16,777,216 colors also known as "truecolor")

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/18e67e93c8a1.png[/atsimg]

as you will see there is not too much difference between the two images, in terms of viewing quality.

From this many ways seem to come to mind regarding the issue.

One being that we could simply use 8 bit colors and say 1000 X 1000px images this would result in 256 million images. The next hurdle would be getting say a million people to view the pictures, but that is not impossible these days.

With 1 million members each member would need to view at least 256 pictures, though realistically would need to view many more.

After this a "flag" type system would be needed where images would be flagged as "static" or "not static". A few static flags would bury the image, giving it views with the lowest priority. Not static will be given higher priority.
Then a second flagging (star ?) system will be used to rate the images from "least interesting" to "most interesting".

Also maybe an R18 flag will be needed? I am pretty sure it will also reproduce every indecent image out there and then some.

Does that mean that most of the site will need to be adult only? with an "ok for minors" flag?

The other ideas are simply an extension of the above.

Much higher resolution images could be used and even with 24 bits, then the images resized and converted to 8 bit. This will result in many many duplicate pictures, of which all except 1 will be discarded by an automated algorithm. The same algorithm will also link the duplicate pictures and the high res pictures via a database.

When an image is flagged as "non static" the linked images will be flagged for displaying.

Re-looking at the pictures it should be possible to go down to 4 bits (16 colors) to cut the number of images needed for initial display.

so ideas? tips? please discuss.

Well after a few little experiments, it turns out to look pretty much like I was expecting; random color. It does look awesome though. I couldn't upload the full quality Bitmaps but these PNG conversions seem to be fairly good quality. Also remember that what you see here isn't pure randomness, it's pseudo-randomness. These 3 images are 300x300 with 24bit color.

PS - download the images and use a proper image viewer/editor to inspect the images close. Your web browser wont work well for zooming in.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4569d57e86fc.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c9b3bb0a3f35.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d5fdba56a624.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by kaleshchand


Well your number estimate is a bit low at image size of 1000x1000 that is 1000000 pixels. Taken at a possible say 16 colors which really is pushing the limits for photos this give you 16^1000000. This number is 9.6085…E1204119, a number with 1,204,120 digits in it; a bit larger than your estimated 256,000,000 images.

As for the randomness, that is not the way to go. Random images are far easier to write the code for than sequential, but to be sure you “see” all possibilities you need to render them sequentially. However for the sake of ever having a chance to see anything other than static random is more realistic, as it will take millions?, Billions? Of years before the sequential method produces anything other than garbage. However with random… who knows you may get lucky in less than a thousand years.

When I first thought of this as I said pc graphics were only 300x200 at 4 colors, and this number may as well be infinity. The increase for a decent quality image makes it so big the human brain can’t even comprehend it. Like I pointed out in paragraph one, at 1000x1000 and only 16 colors the number already boggles the mind.




The processing power needed is next to nothing. This originally was setup on an old 8088 running CGA graphics. The program is nothing, it is only a matter of how much time do you wait for anything but static to appear. As I said at 1 image per second, which is what I had the original program set to, the basic CGA setup is 3.9763049…E36123 possible images. Figure 1 per second as my original program did… and you get
1.26001498665117428985579442281622900441043825561687(repeating decimal) E36116 years
to see them all. Just for reference this is a number with over 36,000 digits in it. So ya, an infinite number of years basically.

reply to post by kaleshchand


’m afraid that there would be far more images than just 256 million the total amount of images that could be generated by this process would be about 256^1,000,000, a number so astronomically huge that the easiest way to express it is with the notation seen above. Furthermore the amount of hard disk space necessary to hold all the generated images would be astronomically huge as well, at least 256^100,000,000th of megabytes, which is more than all of the hard disk space currently in use or ever created or conceivably created within a human life time. However, even with the limitations in place it doesn’t mean that it can’t be done. I am already devising a theoretical means to that end as you read this.
PS. This is my first post on ATS

reply to post by elbur2008


My original program did not save any image what so ever, it was more of an Ephemeral Art project. The images just flashed by at a rate of 1 per second in an endlessly changing “picture.” I suppose you could write some algorithm that would look at the amassed colors and using some fuzzy logic determine if a picture “might” be interesting by the amount of contiguous similarly colored pixels etc. It could then save the hopefuls to the drive to be viewed later and then deleted or kept based on the operators whims.

Originally posted by DarkSarcasm
You fail to realize that the computer can only generate images with commands and data. As of now we would only be able to produce as many images as there are pixels allowing for colors and as many colors are available for these pixels. To generate this quantity of images one would need an enormous amount of processing power.
Whose going to sort through literally infinite and continually increasingly numbers of images.

Honestly, it would be easier to figure out quantum mechanics and provide certainty to the heisenberg uncertainty principle than it would be to wait until the computer had unlimited image generation, colors, and pixels.

If we perfected the uncertainty principle then a computer could be used to recreate reality as we know it (only view portions to decrease processing necessity) then trace backwards or forwards on the chemical reaction simulation to view and hear what was happening, what was being said, true actions, or what might happen based on alterations and decisions manually input into the system. This system could be used to basically watch video of the past and manipulate the future.

A while back there was a quantum computer thread that mentioned Lockheed Martin purchasing usage and I think right to a speculative quantum computer. Someone asked why they would spend 10million dollars on unproven tech like this, I didn't get the chance to answer. The answer is.....

To be able to predict, view, and manipulate the future.10 mil is a drop in the bucket to this company, a risk like this 10 mil is well worth the loss if it does turn out to work.

This sounds very much like the Matrix!
A managed reality by computers (Machines).

reply to post by rigel4


Yes this program I created in no way allows for you to manipulate time. Or even allow you to know which images it shows are real or will become reality. It just shows you “EVERY” possibility. And if you live long enough to actually see something interesting you could then indeed piece together the individual frames to make a video out of these still images. However you still do not know it is “real” or the imaginary pictures.

So there is not any “real” use for this program other than to mike people’s heads explode as they try to wrap their mind around the concept. Like I said before, it usually takes a week or so before they come back to me, their eyes glazed over, hair a mess, clothes worn for days on end, blood shot eyes from lack of sleep, and finally manage to whisper “I get it now.”

reply to post by byeluvolk


This is the monkey with the box of letters making a Shakespeare play. It won't happen apart from conscious effort. Design to form takes NOUS to arrange the pixels into a form the brain recognizes. The darkness must be separated from the light. Any sequence of randomly placed pixels will only give you a splash of chaos. A trillion years of this would only give you the same. Form with meaning arrives through consciousness and purpose. This is a good thread idea that gives a very simple way of viewing the preexistence of consciousness. See this thread. LINK

reply to post by SuperiorEd



You have missed the point entirely. The program I wrote is not random at all. It very systematically steps through every possible configuration of pixels on the screen. Given enough time it will ABSOLUTLY show you every possible image.

reply to post by byeluvolk


I suggest that you try to use computers to visualise what other beings might look like
instead of trying to view all possibilities of existence.
Since most beings will be symmetrical in some aspect,
a program to mirror images will be helpful.
5 and 6 mirroring seems to work best.
How to get "Order out of Chaos"?
The answer is to simply mirror chaos.

Get a copy of Deluxe Paint II.
It's old dos, so you'll need to run in an emulator.
Choose mirror function and for brush choose spray paint.
Use single color for spray paint (black is best)
Move /click mouse randomly (chaos) and you will
get a somewhat suprisingly ordered picture.
Look very carefully . You will see Faces and forms.
Like I said, 5 and 6 mirroring works best.
Which probably is because we "recognise "
and are programmed to interact best with
5 and six based forms.

Hope this helps

reply to post by RavenSpeaks



I am not sure what you are getting at. I understand that if you mirror the chaos you will get a symmetrical image, but I do not see why I would want to create order from the chaos. The point of this program was not about the chaos, but about the rare times it actually creates order all on its own. There is no need to force any order into the program, after it runs for what to us is an eternity, it will all on its own show you exactly what you want to see. LOL it will also show you everything you did not want to see as well. As it will indeed show you everything that ever could be seen.

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You have missed the point entirely. The program I wrote is not random at all. It very systematically steps through every possible configuration of pixels on the screen. Given enough time it will ABSOLUTLY show you every possible image.

edit on 21-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)

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

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You have missed the point entirely. The program I wrote is not random at all. It very systematically steps through every possible configuration of pixels on the screen. Given enough time it will ABSOLUTLY show you every possible image.

edit on 21-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)

Except as has been pointed out your math is off (way off) it's not colors*resx*resy it's (resx*resx)^colors

In short, you are correct in theory exept the 'enough time' aspect makes it unworkable.

Z

I recall reading something in the Sun or Weekly World News more than a couple of years back that Microsoft's Bill Gates developed secret time travel software.

I know it is possible because one of my monkeys just typed this post at random. Why not just work with the alphabet seems simpler and how long to you would get at least a marketable story. How do you tell truth from fiction either way?