Spring RTS Engine

manored wrote:It would still be possible for it to be binary, we dont even have idea how far "down" stuff can go.

Sure it can. But we've seen so much weird shit in physics that I'm quite sure it's way more elemental than the number 2.

Binary isn't the only way of encoding reality, you know.
You can describe the universe with lamda calculus if you want, including binary logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus

manored wrote:Why would the universe suddently exist with 3, 4 or 5 basic elements? However 2 is the number that makes the greater sense, since its the minimum amount of elements necessary for anything to exist.

Why would the universe suddenly exist at all? We know too little about the fundamentals of existance to really argue. It's a matter of belief.

Besides, like car pointed out, isn't unary the simplest possible? An example: Let's say * is the symbol for this unary thing. * equals nothing. ** equals 1, *** equals 2 and so on. There would be 1 of this... thing... in every 'point' in the universe, and more where there is energy/matter/whatever.

It feels counterintuitive to represent nothingness with something, but meh. Scientists are not sure if vacuum is really empty, or even the lowest possible energy state. Again, we know too little.

Wolf-In-Exile wrote:

manored wrote:Lol. Now tell me, what proof do you have of that your senses are correct and that what you sense, incluiding that article, are real? It is in this point where the universe is fatally binary. And even in the ilusion we accept because we have no choice called "reality" It would still be possible for it to be binary, we dont even have idea how far "down" stuff can go.

If reality is all just an illusion created by your mind, you could click your heels together, say "there's no place like home" and dispel that spectre of your imagination if someone were stomping on your nuts because, you know, its not really happening.

Might be of something or someone else shoving it on your mind... then you cant just dispel it :)

I wasnt talking about dimensions, but rather from pretty much anything.

Reason it cant be unary its because there is no unary. if you write *** in a paper its the same thing than writting a lot of 0s, then 111 and then another lot of 0s. Its like morse code: You use only points, but you need space between the points to form the code.

manored wrote:Reason it cant be unary its because there is no unary. if you write *** in a paper its the same thing than writting a lot of 0s, then 111 and then another lot of 0s.

What? No. 000111000(b) is not 111(b). Binary needs the space too, if you write it in paper.

manored wrote: Its like morse code: You use only points but you need space between the points to form the code.

Ok, so you think there would be '0' everywhere (space) and '1' somewhere where there is stuff? How is that different to having a '*' everywhere and '**' where there is stuff?

Teutooni wrote:

manored wrote: Its like morse code: You use only points but you need space between the points to form the code.

Ok, so you think there would be '0' everywhere (space) and '1' somewhere where there is stuff? How is that different to having a '*' everywhere and '**' where there is stuff?

Its not different. Thats why I say there is no unary, or its just the name of a language that uses empty spaces as one of its characters.

You can convert binary into unary (just not in polynomial time). 110 binary = 111111 unary.

manored wrote:a language that uses empty spaces as one of its characters.

No. Every base needs empty space to spearate 11 from 1 and 1. The space is not considered a part of it. It doesn't really need to be space, however. Any logical separation goes. Thats why I used 'points' in the example.

Teutooni wrote:

manored wrote:a language that uses empty spaces as one of its characters.

No. Every base needs empty space to spearate 11 from 1 and 1. The space is not considered a part of it. It doesn't really need to be space, however. Any logical separation goes. Thats why I used 'points' in the example.

thats only a ilusion caused by the fact we are imagining things as they were writen on a paper. now imagine that it is a squared paper, where ever square is a piece of the code... or imagine that is is a lot of white and black cubes fitting perfectly togheder...

I'd say the universe is much simpler when you say it's made of one thing - Energy. You can't break energy up into anything simpler, so I think I've just destroyed your theory.

Your entire theory seems to rely on representing everything in binary, which makes no sense. You're basically saying every number, therefore thing, is representable in binary, therefore the universe is made of binary, therefore anything in the universe is either black or white. This might make sense, but it doesn't matter what base you're in and there's nothing special about base 2 or any base.

If you've got time to worry about these things, you aren't busy enough.

manored wrote:

Teutooni wrote:

manored wrote:a language that uses empty spaces as one of its characters.

No. Every base needs empty space to spearate 11 from 1 and 1. The space is not considered a part of it. It doesn't really need to be space, however. Any logical separation goes. Thats why I used 'points' in the example.

thats only a ilusion caused by the fact we are imagining things as they were writen on a paper. now imagine that it is a squared paper, where ever square is a piece of the code... or imagine that is is a lot of white and black cubes fitting perfectly togheder...

So why does the paper excuse apply to unary but not binary? Matter distribution in the universe is not just "here is something, here not", it's "there's a 3e-10 chance something is here, 3.5e-10 here, ...".

posting in a thread

souledge wrote:I'd say the universe is much simpler when you say it's made of one thing - Energy.

Yes, I agree. The matter/energy dualism seems to point that there is really only one thing. 90% of the mass in protons and neutrons (the core of an atom) is actually the kinetic and potential energy of quarks. The remaining 10% might come from higgs field or something, dunno.

Teutooni wrote:The remaining 10% might come from higgs field or something, dunno.

Strawberry fields, forever.

souledge wrote:I'd say the universe is much simpler when you say it's made of one thing - Energy. You can't break energy up into anything simpler, so I think I've just destroyed your theory.

Your entire theory seems to rely on representing everything in binary, which makes no sense. You're basically saying every number, therefore thing, is representable in binary, therefore the universe is made of binary, therefore anything in the universe is either black or white. This might make sense, but it doesn't matter what base you're in and there's nothing special about base 2 or any base.

Actual, you are endorsing it: energy is one thing, empty spaces are the other.

Before you have a binary system you have a unary which without interpretation is undefined. The second option once introduced gives you a basis upon which to interpret them together as binary, but you must have already evaluated them to distinguish between the options. Until you distinguish between them, there is only one and if there is only one there is no variation upon which complexes can be constructed such as the interpreter.

Your theory presupposes that the two options are distinguishable but does not provide the grounds upon which their difference becomes evident.

manored wrote:

souledge wrote:I'd say the universe is much simpler when you say it's made of one thing - Energy. You can't break energy up into anything simpler, so I think I've just destroyed your theory.

Your entire theory seems to rely on representing everything in binary, which makes no sense. You're basically saying every number, therefore thing, is representable in binary, therefore the universe is made of binary, therefore anything in the universe is either black or white. This might make sense, but it doesn't matter what base you're in and there's nothing special about base 2 or any base.

Actual, you are endorsing it: energy is one thing, empty spaces are the other.

And everythign in between is in between...

I believe the universe is constantly on the move.

The universe knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't (Or where it isn't from where it is, depending on which is the greater) it obtains a difference or deviation. The inertial guidance system use deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from the position where it is to the position where it isn't. The missile arrives at the position where it wasn't, consequently the position where it was is now the position where it isn't. In the event that the position where it is now is not the same as the position where it originally wasn't the system has acquired a variation, (variations are caused by external factors and the discussion of these factors is not
considered to be within the scope of this report) the variation being the difference between where the missile is and where the universe wasn't. If the variation is considered to be a significant factor it too may be corrected by the inertial guidance system. Moreover, the universe must now know where it was also. The "Thought Process" of the universe is as follows: Because a variation has modified some of the information which the universe had obtained, it is not sure where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't (or vice versa) and by differentiating this from the algebraic difference between where it shouldn't be and where it was, it is able to obtain the difference between it's deviation and it's variation, this
difference being called the Error.

manored wrote:

souledge wrote:I'd say the universe is much simpler when you say it's made of one thing - Energy. You can't break energy up into anything simpler, so I think I've just destroyed your theory.

Your entire theory seems to rely on representing everything in binary, which makes no sense. You're basically saying every number, therefore thing, is representable in binary, therefore the universe is made of binary, therefore anything in the universe is either black or white. This might make sense, but it doesn't matter what base you're in and there's nothing special about base 2 or any base.

Actual, you are endorsing it: energy is one thing, empty spaces are the other.

"Empty spaces" is just a measure of energy (no energy), so it's just energy.

All you seem to be doing is taking energy and splitting and converting it into a binary representation.

Still squabbling over the binary way of describing things. Why not look at how it behaves? An asymptote may not be a line, but a curve around an atom or star.