Simulation theory.

guy incognito said:

i dont get what you mean

Click to expand...

Pixels have three basic properties.
They're ordered.
They have settable values to create a range of output.
They have unique, specified addresses that allows whatever is running the image to send the right output to the right pixel at the right time.

They're so much more than just "grains", and the OP talked pixels and not mere graininess iirc. cn

cannabineer said:

Pixels have three basic properties.
They're ordered.
They have settable values to create a range of output.
They have unique, specified addresses that allows whatever is running the image to send the right output to the right pixel at the right time.

They're so much more than just "grains", and the OP talked pixels and not mere graininess iirc. cn

Click to expand...

I get what you mean.

The fabric of space-time itself could contain the pixels. Looking at crystals on an atomic scale, how did you determine that what you are seeing is continuous in nature and not a summation of discretely sized subsections?

Doesn't every photon that enters our eye exist between some minimum and maximum energy values, dictated by the laws of physics?

How did you determine that the images you see in real life are not from inconceivably small pixels? Just imagine a high definition tv that is many many orders of magnitude better than current technology, and the screen can be shaped into a 3-d object. How do you distinguish between a real person, and an apparent person on a 3-dimensional screen with a resolution higher than you can detect? No matter how closely you magnify the screen you see what appears to be a continuous picture.

cannabineer said:

Pixels have three basic properties.
They're ordered.
They have settable values to create a range of output.
They have unique, specified addresses that allows whatever is running the image to send the right output to the right pixel at the right time.

They're so much more than just "grains", and the OP talked pixels and not mere graininess iirc. cn

Click to expand...

pixels was the wrong wording, what i mean to say is that an atom isnt the SMALLEST thing, they are made of quarks, i think. lol

and when we try to look closer and closer we just see dots. it has to end that way if we keep looking. once again i think.

but it was just a super out there idea, in which i liked to share.

there are a lot of different universe models that will really turn your brain inside out. lol

stay hi

guy incognito said:

I get what you mean.

The fabric of space-time itself could contain the pixels. Looking at crystals on an atomic scale, how did you determine that what you are seeing is continuous in nature and not a summation of discretely sized subsections?

Click to expand...

Atoms and particles are discretely-sized subunits. In crystals, they even order themselves. But they don't have the other properties of pixels. They're not displaying an image or a dataset brought in from "elsewhere". They're just sitting there in their discreet ordered way.

Doesn't every photon that enters our eye exist between some minimum and maximum energy values, dictated by the laws of physics?

Click to expand...

Yes. But how does that relate to pixels?

<edit> on reconsideration, No. Gamma and radio enter our eyes as well ... we just don't see them. "How relate to pixels?" question still stands, though.

How did you determine that the images you see in real life are not from inconceivably small pixels? Just imagine a high definition tv that is many many orders of magnitude better than current technology, and the screen can be shaped into a 3-d object. How do you distinguish between a real person, and an apparent person on a 3-dimensional screen with a resolution higher than you can detect? No matter how closely you magnify the screen you see what appears to be a continuous picture.

Click to expand...

Indirectly. I've always been a keen student of the world of the very small. Atoms and subatomic particles don't have the digital data representation that gives pixels their meaning. They're so relentlessly analog. Even quantization isn't digitization, to the chagrin of the quantum information buffs.
For the fabric of the universe to be made of pixels, they'd have to be smaller than the Planck length and refresh faster than the Planck duration. Since those Planck quantities are considered the limit of meaningful properties, the problem has been shunted aside into metaphysics as far as I'm concerned.
What drew my interest was OP's claim of seeing pixels in nature. The only ones I can envision would be beneath nature and its Planck limit. Sorta not the same thing imo. cn

cannabineer said:

Atoms and particles are discretely-sized subunits. In crystals, they even order themselves. But they don't have the other properties of pixels. They're not displaying an image or a dataset brought in from "elsewhere". They're just sitting there in their discreet ordered way.

Click to expand...

How do you differentiate between reality and a high resolution screen? Couldn't I make the same argument for a super high def screen that displays atomic particles from a program based on the real laws of physics? I put the real equations in for how it works, and presto you see real atoms comes together in a lattice structure, exactly as they should according to the laws of physics. You look closer and cannot distinguish any pixels because the resolution is so dense.

cannabineer said:

Yes. But how does that relate to pixels?

<edit> on reconsideration, No. Gamma and radio enter our eyes as well ... we just don't see them. "How relate to pixels?" question still stands, though.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I may have misunderstood your original question. They have "settable values to create a range of output". You can set the value to any quantity of energy between the minimum and maximum, and other properties like wavelength also.

We limit television screens to the visible spectrum for obvious reasons. I don't see how changing the wavelength/frequency to something outside what our eyes can perceive changes that. You could make a tv that emits in the visible spectrum, but also in the infrared spectrum just based on an algorithm from the data input. Your eye will not be able to detect the non visible parts of the spectrum, but the source is still pixilated.

cannabineer said:

Indirectly. I've always been a keen student of the world of the very small. Atoms and subatomic particles don't have the digital data representation that gives pixels their meaning. They're so relentlessly analog. Even quantization isn't digitization, to the chagrin of the quantum information buffs.
For the fabric of the universe to be made of pixels, they'd have to be smaller than the Planck length and refresh faster than the Planck duration. Since those Planck quantities are considered the limit of meaningful properties, the problem has been shunted aside into metaphysics as far as I'm concerned.
What drew my interest was OP's claim of seeing pixels in nature. The only ones I can envision would be beneath nature and its Planck limit. Sorta not the same thing imo. cn

Click to expand...

Why would they have to be smaller than a planck length? Could a photon not emerge from a pixel the size of a planck length? And wouldn't a pixel smaller than that length not provide any increase in resolution?

How many angels will fit on the point of a pin? 47? If each 'angel' is 5 nickel atoms arranged by the tip of a probing electron microscope. The photon frequency of 'blue' light is shortest used in data ie. blueray. So what are yall talking about?

guy incognito said:

How do you differentiate between reality and a high resolution screen? Couldn't I make the same argument for a super high def screen that displays atomic particles from a program based on the real laws of physics? I put the real equations in for how it works, and presto you see real atoms comes together in a lattice structure, exactly as they should according to the laws of physics. You look closer and cannot distinguish any pixels because the resolution is so dense.

Click to expand...

I can't argue against that.

I'm afraid I may have misunderstood your original question. They have "settable values to create a range of output". You can set the value to any quantity of energy between the minimum and maximum, and other properties like wavelength also.

Click to expand...

When I think of pixels, I think of not just the size and ordering, but also on how the output is transduced. It'll depend on bitrate, since it's digital. A high enough bitrate and you'll be able to simulate the billions of colors needed to satisfactorily simulate the apparently smooth spectral distribution of light.

We limit television screens to the visible spectrum for obvious reasons. I don't see how changing the wavelength/frequency to something outside what our eyes can perceive changes that. You could make a tv that emits in the visible spectrum, but also in the infrared spectrum just based on an algorithm from the data input. Your eye will not be able to detect the non visible parts of the spectrum, but the source is still pixilated.

Click to expand...

This leads me to a tangent that fascinates me. Old analog TV had pixels and yet was driven by analog signals. Does that mean the TV put out a digital signal, or a simulated digital signal? I am stumped by this question.

Why would they have to be smaller than a planck length? Could a photon not emerge from a pixel the size of a planck length? And wouldn't a pixel smaller than that length not provide any increase in resolution?

Click to expand...

This cold I have feels like it filled my head with cheese. I don't know, guy ... and I lack the quickness at this time to say it any more elegantly.

I did a bit of web research to give my hunch some perspective ... that the Planck length has proven some sort of practical limit to our probing the very small. But I have only harvested more confusion ... and must confess ignorance. cn

Me too. I don't know what i'm talking about. I have more questions than I have answers. How many pixels in this joint? I'm gonna have to go to some extensive research.

guy incognito said:

Me too. I don't know what i'm talking about. I have more questions than I have answers. How many pixels in this joint? I'm gonna have to go to some extensive research.

Click to expand...

Tootsie Pop Owl claims three per trichome. Trichome, heh. cn

grizlbr said:

How many angels will fit on the point of a pin? 47? If each 'angel' is 5 nickel atoms arranged by the tip of a probing electron microscope. The photon frequency of 'blue' light is shortest used in data ie. blueray. So what are yall talking about?

Click to expand...

Perspective is a wonderful thing. A great theological question in Haiti has been "how many pins will fit in one angel?" cn

Awesome, Guy and Neer! Very exhilarating exchange, thanks...

Yeh was a nice read indeed, best wishes with your common cold 'neer.