DMT-Nexus member
Posts: 98 Joined: 04-Apr-2015 Last visit: 05-May-2020
|
Ryusaki wrote:I have no high hopes for No mans land.
Simply because a trillion different star systems mean nothing if they look all too similar to each other.
The game will be fun, for a while, but random generated game universes have one limitating factor.
No matter how many random things the computer generates, without a human touch it will be/look boring. Our pattern recognition will make us realize sooner or later that all these worlds have much less diversity than a small garden here on earth.
Procedural detail generation is a big thing these days and it gets better and better, but unless we train AIs to have an asthetic feeling, you'll always need an artist who selects the good parts and throws away the bad parts.
I agree, as I'm sure there's a decent chance that it will become monotonous after putting in a large amount of consecutive hours. Personally, I feel that the experience will be quite fruitful for a while though, as the game has many interesting aspects such as resource-gathering, combat, missions, multiplayer, etc. By the way things look it wouldn't be far-out to extrapolate that AIs will become more keen of the the environment in which they work upon. One of the videos (if not this one) explains how the AIs skim the Universe for anything that's out of array or isn't appealing (to them), so it's already begun. It's still remarkable to me that the simulation's space will be extremely large and multi-faceted. my loopy guess is that t. mckenna is off hopping about hyperspace wielding a butterfly net analog, all the while collecting the most peculiar.
|
|
|
|
|
DMT-Nexus member
Posts: 98 Joined: 04-Apr-2015 Last visit: 05-May-2020
|
Metanoia wrote:I was pondering the other day about this and was wondering, could we explain the strangeness of particles not existing until we observe them with something like Simulation Theory? Let us assume all of our perceived reality is a simulation. And what arcologist is saying (as I understand it) is that we would need to have an immense calculation/storage device to create a universe sized simulation. But what if only the pieces we are observing at any given time are the necessary simulated bits? Like the focus of a camera lens, the background blurred. So that this simulation device would only need to dole out bits of reality that we are currently focused on, making the constraints on size much more feasible. arcologist wrote:but really there is only a limited amount of information in those simulations (the random seed, algorithms used to generate the world), and only a portion of the procedurally generated world is actually simulated at any given time. This is essentially what I'm trying to say about our everyday reality. Perhaps only a small fraction of the world is ever simulated at one time. http://www.iflscience.com/physics/measurement-rules-quantum-universeI just love thinking about this stuff!  I have pondered this many of times. Take a moment to point your line of sight forward in whatever setting you're in. Now assume (which you may actually be) that you're the only organism in your current space in reality. Essentially you are the only observer and computer there. Now is everything else in your given setting actually visually appearing as you would presume? Or, is all the objects, walls, etc that is currently not within your peripheral in an alternative physical state since it isn't perceived by you or any other being. I like to call it the "Unperceived reality" as it is evidently not being perceived/observed. Sure the pigmentation of each and every physical thing in your environment remains the same, but none of it is being reflected back as light to your eyes. In my opinion I feel that everything that is not being observed whatsoever by an earthly-organism then exists as a set of given perceptual conditions waiting to be interpreted into a organisms reality. Remember the good ol' if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound? Of course the sound waves are produced, but assume no organism is there to perceive it... then that means that waves are never actually interpreted into an auditory perception, therefore it won't exist to an organism. Simulations and video games are the alike and are much more obvious. Anyone care to object or add on? my loopy guess is that t. mckenna is off hopping about hyperspace wielding a butterfly net analog, all the while collecting the most peculiar.
|
|
|
DMT-Nexus member
 
Posts: 3574 Joined: 18-Apr-2012 Last visit: 05-Feb-2024
|
Naut wrote:... Anyone care to object or add on? This is the very essence of Quantum Physics...Welcome to a very weird world.  A universal RAM disk doesn't necessarily need to be constructed of matter... Please do not PM tek related questions Reserve the right to change your mind at any given moment.
|
|
|
DMT-Nexus member
Posts: 685 Joined: 08-Jun-2013 Last visit: 04-Mar-2024
|
Metanoia wrote:I was pondering the other day about this and was wondering, could we explain the strangeness of particles not existing until we observe them with something like Simulation Theory? Let us assume all of our perceived reality is a simulation. And what arcologist is saying (as I understand it) is that we would need to have an immense calculation/storage device to create a universe sized simulation. But what if only the pieces we are observing at any given time are the necessary simulated bits? Like the focus of a camera lens, the background blurred. So that this simulation device would only need to dole out bits of reality that we are currently focused on, making the constraints on size much more feasible. arcologist wrote:but really there is only a limited amount of information in those simulations (the random seed, algorithms used to generate the world), and only a portion of the procedurally generated world is actually simulated at any given time. This is essentially what I'm trying to say about our everyday reality. Perhaps only a small fraction of the world is ever simulated at one time. http://www.iflscience.com/physics/measurement-rules-quantum-universeI just love thinking about this stuff! Size is relative to our perception and scale within our own consensus reality. I had an experience with N2o and LSD in the 90's and I was convinced I was watching the "patterns of time" being played on a linear line inside of a computer brain. It kind of shook me up a bit, it wasn't the typical hippe crack trip on N2o I was used too. It felt like I had stumbled upon a secret of the inner workings of perceived reality. Quantum computing, which DARPA is well into researching most likely, will breath life into AI. Marijuana, LSD, psilocybin, and DMT they all changed the way I see But love's the only thing that ever saved my life - Sturgill Simpson "Turtles all the Way Down"
Why am I here?
|
|
|
DMT-Nexus member
Posts: 98 Joined: 04-Apr-2015 Last visit: 05-May-2020
|
Mark Zuckerberg is all over VR with Oculus. This is quite an intriguing interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQaCv52DSnYI'm definitely grabbing a VR device as soon as I can. The metaverse is waiting  my loopy guess is that t. mckenna is off hopping about hyperspace wielding a butterfly net analog, all the while collecting the most peculiar.
|
|
|
DMT-Nexus member
Posts: 23 Joined: 03-Oct-2015 Last visit: 25-Nov-2015 Location: stuck with the crazies
|
I can't wait for VR. There's a pretty cool looking VR game on steam that is essentially a VR tour of a brain. Of course it's less the mushy organ of a brain and more the nervous system and neurons firing all stylized to make a pretty game but it looks like it'd be fun none the less.
And after the hours I've put into terraria and starbound I am definitely looking forward to no mans land. I'm just looking forward to what will come in the next few years even more once they really start to get a hang of making VR games.
|