(May 16, 2013 at 10:21 am)paulpablo Wrote: Have you ever had an idea for a computer game that was too advanced to actually be real?
That feels like a trick question to me. It's really just a question of processing power. The newest version of Sim City would be far too advanced to be real in 1985. And it's limitations can be most easily seen in the way it handles things like jobs (which are assigned randomly with each "day" in the game) and traffic (which uses algorithms which can easily be fooled into forcing traffic through the least efficient path). But the version of Sim City released in 2025 is probably too advance to be real today.
I think that those types of simulations, where there are tremendous amounts of small interactions that can be reduced to an inefficient algorithm, are potentially the most advanced. If the game forced the computer to track every person and every job and have each individual make decisions in order to manage traffic, you're requiring some pretty massive computational power as the population/city grows. Similarly, a racing game where the physics are modeled as accurately as possible (again, with no shortcuts for efficiency) would require huge amounts of processing power.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould