How many RAM does the universe consumes?
>>54500514
6 RAM
>>54500514
all of them
128kb
>>54500514
16GiB
One magma
>>54500514
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
bout tree fiddy
>>54500560
8 GiB is enough for the universe, bruh.
16 trillion Zettaqubits
>>54500514
Less than Firefox
>>54500514
I think it overflows
>>54500580
>stein
640K
>implying quantum physics is binary based
42
3.5 GiB
>>54501537
ebin
>>54501559
>no fun allowed
>>54501616
Where did I imply this?
>>54501537
I thought that was how many threads the simulation was using
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLyLxvFxHbU
all the RAM in the universe
>>54500560
kek
>>54501537
we found our question
>>54500685
Kek
>>54500514
3.5
about 6 ram I think
Alot
Depends if its dedotated or not
>>54500514
Approximately 6000 fedorabtyes
>>54500514
is that what i think it is?
>>54500514
Currently, the universe is consuming precisely 1.7 RAMs.
>>54500945
wew lad
8.6 RAMs
>>54500560
kek
>>54500560
-i/0
>>54506203
Uhh hello
>>54500514
Literally none, its just a massive cosmic processor that spits shit in a series of interconnected loops. It has a small quantum cache tho.
420 bazinga mayonaises of RAM
One KB of RAM and a swap file of (atoms in the universe)^2 bytes.
>>54500514
64k
>implying the universe isn't the result of a memory leak
what OS does the network run on?
I'd say Arch, it works perfectly once it got started.
As much as you can download.
>>54500514
less than chrome
>>54500514
every
The universe isn't a simulation. Sorry, kid.
>>54500514
640k should be enough for anyone.
>>54510824
BUT THATS EXACTLY WHAT YOUD SAY IF IT WAS FUCKER
>>54500514
all of them
>>54500514
Bout three fifdy
More than can be produced in said universe. I'm very sorry.
>>54510876
A fully accurate simulation of a single particle would require infinite computing power. So yes, it's bullshit.
The world controlling elite is real though. Doubt nothing and everything.
>>54511138
>A fully accurate simulation of a single particle would require infinite computing power.
According to the laws of physics in this universe. If this universe is a simulation that would be irrelevant as the laws only apply to said simulation and not the simulator.
>>54511138
The "bad" Aliens searching for the truth of the earth while they influence us to destroy it so they can get to it quicker.
>>54511245
At that point, you're working with things which are completely outside the scope of strictly objective thinking, it's a matter of philosophy (metaphysics). It's kinda like the singularity, except it's even more speculative.
This isn't anything bad in the slightest, and is certainly an amazing subject, but it's literally as unfounded in materialistic matters as God or anything transcendental, except Fedoras aren't triggered in this case. Again, this isn't a demerit in any way.
>>54500514
>tfw you are going so fast that the universe has to use swap and it slows your time down
>>54510932
What if they used caching?
>>54511138
>A fully accurate simulation of a single particle would require infinite computing power
You're wrong and you're retarded.
>>54501552
Is it going to get laggy when I try to look at earth from a huge distance?
1.7%
>>54500514
A couple maybe, I don't know.
>>54500514
less than 8GB
>>54500514
How far is the draw distance of the universe?
>>54512010
The problems is that you basically need infinite precision and that even the simplest things happening on a tiny time scale are simple to formulate mathematically but involve massive computation power to execute. Even the movement of a single photon involves incredibly complex calculation. It gets even crazier when considering stuff like quarks or even whole atoms.
Of course we have good enough approximations for those things, but they are not 100% accurate up to our knowledge (i.e. Schrödinger's equation). And even those would require insane computational volume to even simulate or cm^3 of air.
>>54510824
According to physicists there is absolutely no way for us to rule it out. Some do believe that while difficult, if it is a simulation, it may be possible to find evidence of it.
>>54516861
Here's your proof: I'm not simulated.
>>54500514
Beelyuns and beelyuns!
>>54500514
How much RAM is in your head?
FWIW, I am currently stationed at a well known European particle accelerator and there is some concerning discovery that is still under wraps. It is related to simulated universes.
>>54517020
Here's your refutal: you are.
>>54516861
The whole "Is the universe simulated?"-thing is merely of philosophical interest. The whole point is that it is absolutely impossible to find any evidence of it. Our universe could be simulated, but by what? What does that even mean? Is the world that our universe is simulated in also simulated? Etc, there's no empirical interest in vague "theories" like that. It's a purely philosophical construction.
>>54515089
Wrong.
Planck units are a thing.
That means there is limited precision necessary to model the universe. There is a lower bound on the increment of distance that things move. There is a lower bond on the increments of time that must be calculated for each step in the simulation.
The amount of processing power necessary to model a single subatomic particle to planck precision is already achievable. Just not in real time.
The amount of processing power to model a building, or a planet, or a universe from every subatomic particle down to planck precision in real time is enormous but that amount of processing power is not infinite.
"Time" being a significant unknown as being in the simulation we wouldn't know what time scale the simulation is actually being run.
This in turn induces another variable in that it could be that it is a significant amount of processing power over a limited time scale or it could be a limited amount of processing power over an enormous time scale to achieve the precision necessary.
>>54500514
it's difficult to answer
>how many fundamental particles are present in a cubic meter? Is it possible to measure them and their state at given arbitrary time t (heisenberg principle)?
>the particles distribution is not uniform
>the universe is not static so impossible to ascertain an exact physical dimension to it
>is information physically quantifiable?
>>54517197
Could a simulation do this?
>>54517293
>Planck units are a thing.
Oh, please explain that to me. What is the exact evidence that Planck units are in fact the quantized units of the universe.
>That means there is limited precision necessary to model the universe.
No that doesn't mean that AT ALL, and I have no idea why this misconception is so widespread.
>There is a lower bound on the increment of distance that things move. There is a lower bond on the increments of time that must be calculated for each step in the simulation.
You've got it all completely wrong, and I'm honestly curious where you got this bullshit from.
You have very obviously no idea what you are talking about, so please stop.
>>54517369
You clearly do not understand what a planck length is.
Increments of spacetime below plank units simply cannot be calculated. This creates a lower bound on the theoretical precision needed to simulate the universe.
Stop being a faggot because you don't understand the concept.
>>54517498
>Increments of spacetime below plank units simply cannot be calculated.
Probably watched a few youtube videos a little too uncritically. Jesus Christ. I hate it when you CS students think you have it all figured out by looking up concepts WAY beyond your scope summarized in three sentences.
>>54517604
Cool complete lack of argument retard. Let me know when you get out of highschool.
>>54517627
I start with arguments when you start to explain the reasoning why exactly a planck unit is supposed to be the unit of universe. You don't know shit, you just picked up a few buzzwords.
>>54500514
the universe is just one bit existing in many states at once.
