How many RAM does the universe consumes?

How many RAM does the universe consumes?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
youtube.com/watch?v=GLyLxvFxHbU
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

6 RAM

all of them

128kb

16GiB

One magma

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

bout tree fiddy

8 GiB is enough for the universe, bruh.

16 trillion Zettaqubits

Less than Firefox

I think it overflows

>stein

640K

>implying quantum physics is binary based

42

3.5 GiB

ebin

>no fun allowed

Where did I imply this?

I thought that was how many threads the simulation was using

youtube.com/watch?v=GLyLxvFxHbU

all the RAM in the universe

kek

we found our question

Kek

3.5

about 6 ram I think

Alot

Depends if its dedotated or not

Approximately 6000 fedorabtyes

is that what i think it is?

Currently, the universe is consuming precisely 1.7 RAMs.

wew lad

8.6 RAMs

kek

...

-i/0

Uhh hello

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.

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.

...

less than chrome

every

The universe isn't a simulation. Sorry, kid.

640k should be enough for anyone.

BUT THATS EXACTLY WHAT YOUD SAY IF IT WAS FUCKER

all of them

Bout three fifdy

More than can be produced in said universe. I'm very sorry.

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.

>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.

The "bad" Aliens searching for the truth of the earth while they influence us to destroy it so they can get to it quicker.

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.

>tfw you are going so fast that the universe has to use swap and it slows your time down

What if they used caching?

>A fully accurate simulation of a single particle would require infinite computing power
You're wrong and you're retarded.

Is it going to get laggy when I try to look at earth from a huge distance?

1.7%

A couple maybe, I don't know.

less than 8GB

How far is the draw distance of the universe?

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.

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.

Here's your proof: I'm not simulated.

Beelyuns and beelyuns!

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.

Here's your refutal: you are.

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.

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.

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?

Could a simulation do this?

>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.

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.

>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.

Cool complete lack of argument retard. Let me know when you get out of highschool.

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.

the universe is just one bit existing in many states at once.