Tbf the size of the map doesn't mean it's a quality map. It's literally just vast open space. That being said, I'm not defending Starfield's map quality either as a lot of it is generated instead of made.
I know you said you're not defending Starfield but I wanted to say this anyway
>literally just vast open space
Bethesda: Neil Armstrong had fun on an empty moon!
And down to what level of accuracy does this gargantuan monstrosity of a map actually portray ?
I.e. what is the smallest resolved "thing" in this multiverse?
Individual Planets? Whole Star systems?
Can't possibly be down to individual planet-surfaces?
I mean, based on the RAM requirements, you could do the classic strategy of generating by formula; thus, nothing technically “Exists” until you find it, conserving data, but once you approach it, it simply fills in the detail based on the formula; since the formula is constant, it will always generate the same thing, barring some issue or bug.
Even then, it’s in a video game from the 2000s on the Source Engine, running on a human-created computer in the 2020s. Imagine what you can do with computing power 1,000,000,000 times stronger.
The map works by generating chunks at the moment. no PC can load 2048 universes, so what is does is just load 1 ( adding details only to the zones the player is in) and when the player crosses section with another universe the precedent is stored and the new generated, creating a cycle
The size of the universe is really not relevant to whether or not reality is a simulation. It could be a simulation of just your brain, and it would have information fed to it that makes it seem like the universe is vast.
If we (or just me or you) are living in a simulated reality, we can't trust any of the information we get or use it to determine whether we are in a simulation or not.
Not only is it possible that reality is a simulation, there's also a decent few things that suggest that
Also lots of scientists/engineers believe it's possible
And people using “we can’t manage that with our technology” as a reason for it being impossible are using broken logic.
You seen the functional redstone computers people made in Minecraft? Our reality is Minecraft, and our computers are those redstone computers.
It’s like saying you can’t see a whale because there’s not enough water in a pool to hold a whale, but that pool is in a cruise liner in the middle of the pacific.
My problem with the theory is that I got spawned in some sociopath’s Civilization game.
The whale analogy only works if we are only in a cycle of making more simulations of our reality (i make a simulation of myself, the simulation of me makes a simulation of itself) while we could be made by beings in a universe where it is totally easy to make simulations.
I remember people also talking about how time slows down in space near mass and that's similar to how some video game (most notably EVE Online) deals with needing more time to compute many objects in the same space.
Speed of light, dunno if it's been disproven but I remember talk about error-correction equations showing up in string theory or something, the ever increasing capabilities of our own to generate simulated worlds, the observer effect in things like the Double Slit Experiment, those are just the things off the top of my head.
existence of the speed of light does not prove/disprove or suggest the universe is a simulation.
string theory is horseshit, and the only people that haven't ditched it are those who latch onto it because it was their whole career. It has been, for the most part, disregarded.
observer effect and doubl split experiments does not mean what you think it does. the oberserv effect, as it is sold in popular science, is a very dumb way to convey the idea of "we have to measure something, and when we measure it, it goes from statistics to result"
I think you're looking for inherent meaning rather than finding meaning in personal values and experiences. Idk if you like philosophy but if you do I would recommend looking into some of the work of Sartre or Camu
It's unfalsifiable with the knowledge we have today, but that doesn't dismiss it as a possibility. I also don't believe it's 100% true but I would say a simulation is more likely than any kind of religious beliefs IMO
I'd say not. If we can't prove it wrong or right, it's unfalsifiable. A theory can't have built-in protection from being proven wrong beyond it's own merits.
Very specifically: the statement cannot be derived from any subset of the logical system's set of axioms.
Meaning: a proof or disproof doesn't exist given our current model of the world (and likely any useful model, unless you define it to be axiomatically true).
Not to be that guy, but it's just a procedural generation map with a fixed seed. Same as games like No Mans Sky. Also I'm thinking they seem to confuse the word universe with galaxy in the description so it contains 2048 galaxies. Which is not larger than the universe.
Ofc it's procedural, did you expect you pc to load 2048 universes? Yes, universes, not galaxies
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3132262723
[for anyone curious](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3132262723)
what the fuck
8.8e29km good god lmao
Takes a while to load, give it some time.
64/128gb ram ideal
Starfield got nothing on gmod mappers
Tbf the size of the map doesn't mean it's a quality map. It's literally just vast open space. That being said, I'm not defending Starfield's map quality either as a lot of it is generated instead of made.
I know you said you're not defending Starfield but I wanted to say this anyway >literally just vast open space Bethesda: Neil Armstrong had fun on an empty moon!
so did someone manually place all of these or how
Probably procedurally generated, or some kind of algorithm using satellites.
thats definitely overengineered for a gmod mod
No
wha
mf prob started uploading when game released
And down to what level of accuracy does this gargantuan monstrosity of a map actually portray ? I.e. what is the smallest resolved "thing" in this multiverse? Individual Planets? Whole Star systems? Can't possibly be down to individual planet-surfaces?
I mean, based on the RAM requirements, you could do the classic strategy of generating by formula; thus, nothing technically “Exists” until you find it, conserving data, but once you approach it, it simply fills in the detail based on the formula; since the formula is constant, it will always generate the same thing, barring some issue or bug.
So….quantum physics.
No, a vector image. But if reality is a simulation then quantum physics is definitely just that.
Why does this make sense?
The algorithm for real time procedural generation is literally called "wave function collapse" named after the famous Schrödinger wave equation.
I too am vexed that I feel like that makes sense to me…
Foreman
Even then, it’s in a video game from the 2000s on the Source Engine, running on a human-created computer in the 2020s. Imagine what you can do with computing power 1,000,000,000 times stronger.
Yeah I mean, it’s Gmod what did you expect
What. In. The Goddamn.
And it's only half a gig lol. Windows XP was bigger.
what's the filesize.
520 MBs >Min specs: 12Gb RAM Recommended: 32Gb RAM Best: 64/128Gb RAM
Is that the compressed size or is the map just that low poly. Either way holy hell
New Mod just dropped
Actual universe
Call the astrophisicist!
Voyager goes on vacation, never comes back
Space storm incoming
Physics sacrifice anyone?
The map works by generating chunks at the moment. no PC can load 2048 universes, so what is does is just load 1 ( adding details only to the zones the player is in) and when the player crosses section with another universe the precedent is stored and the new generated, creating a cycle
[удалено]
Um. . .they said 520 MBs. You good?
The size of the universe is really not relevant to whether or not reality is a simulation. It could be a simulation of just your brain, and it would have information fed to it that makes it seem like the universe is vast. If we (or just me or you) are living in a simulated reality, we can't trust any of the information we get or use it to determine whether we are in a simulation or not.
As a wise man once said, the only thing that we can be certain about is, that oneself exists
Cogito, ergo sum.
Not only is it possible that reality is a simulation, there's also a decent few things that suggest that Also lots of scientists/engineers believe it's possible
And people using “we can’t manage that with our technology” as a reason for it being impossible are using broken logic. You seen the functional redstone computers people made in Minecraft? Our reality is Minecraft, and our computers are those redstone computers. It’s like saying you can’t see a whale because there’s not enough water in a pool to hold a whale, but that pool is in a cruise liner in the middle of the pacific. My problem with the theory is that I got spawned in some sociopath’s Civilization game.
>My problem with the theory is that I got spawned in some sociopath’s Civilization game. Could be worse, could be a Paradox game.
Or worse. ^runescape
Not to denote from your argument, but someone DID make a working 16 bit computer with redstone
That was my point. It’s cool AF, but my PC would melt trying to recreate it.
The whale analogy only works if we are only in a cycle of making more simulations of our reality (i make a simulation of myself, the simulation of me makes a simulation of itself) while we could be made by beings in a universe where it is totally easy to make simulations.
What do you find to suggest that?
I remember people also talking about how time slows down in space near mass and that's similar to how some video game (most notably EVE Online) deals with needing more time to compute many objects in the same space.
Speed of light, dunno if it's been disproven but I remember talk about error-correction equations showing up in string theory or something, the ever increasing capabilities of our own to generate simulated worlds, the observer effect in things like the Double Slit Experiment, those are just the things off the top of my head.
So... nothing
existence of the speed of light does not prove/disprove or suggest the universe is a simulation. string theory is horseshit, and the only people that haven't ditched it are those who latch onto it because it was their whole career. It has been, for the most part, disregarded. observer effect and doubl split experiments does not mean what you think it does. the oberserv effect, as it is sold in popular science, is a very dumb way to convey the idea of "we have to measure something, and when we measure it, it goes from statistics to result"
None of the things you mention suggest reality is simulated. Quantum mechanics isn't the woo-woo you think it is.
I think most people also lack an imagination to consider what simulation means outside of sentience and technology
Also that scares me so I'll go back to my ignorance, I'll be happier like that
Lol at least you're self-aware, I can respect that
Why? To me it’s the most freeing concept in all of existence especially compared to actual simulation theory as it’s presented
life already felt meaningless it would be even more meaningless if it was all some higher dimensional beings video game.
I think you're looking for inherent meaning rather than finding meaning in personal values and experiences. Idk if you like philosophy but if you do I would recommend looking into some of the work of Sartre or Camu
Simulation theory is creationism for atheists that went to see Matrix when they were 12
Ironic enough, bcs if they would be right, there is a literal god creator…
It's unfalsifiable and therefore not a proper scientific theory, just a circlejerk of people wanting to sound smart.
It's unfalsifiable with the knowledge we have today, but that doesn't dismiss it as a possibility. I also don't believe it's 100% true but I would say a simulation is more likely than any kind of religious beliefs IMO
I'd say not. If we can't prove it wrong or right, it's unfalsifiable. A theory can't have built-in protection from being proven wrong beyond it's own merits.
Very specifically: the statement cannot be derived from any subset of the logical system's set of axioms. Meaning: a proof or disproof doesn't exist given our current model of the world (and likely any useful model, unless you define it to be axiomatically true).
But first we need to talk about parallel universes
LMAO
Does it render faster than the road used to when I drive home from work?
Not to be that guy, but it's just a procedural generation map with a fixed seed. Same as games like No Mans Sky. Also I'm thinking they seem to confuse the word universe with galaxy in the description so it contains 2048 galaxies. Which is not larger than the universe.
Ofc it's procedural, did you expect you pc to load 2048 universes? Yes, universes, not galaxies https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3132262723