Pedantic note: Pandora was the woman who opened the box. Pandora was not in the box. The problems of the world were, along with hope. Maybe you're mixing the story with the phrase "the cat's out of the box" ?
Not very good. The writing is okay, but walking away isn't better than deluding yourself with justification. Yes I get it's all metaphor, but that doesn't make it better.
If you actually read the thing, within the literal story it never says there's actually anywhere better, or any better place could exist.
I don't see how that could provide an alternative to Novikov fixpoints. You can't control the initial conditions well enough, so the Novikov fixpoint you get is one where no observable time travel has ever occurred.
I think you're getting too attached to fixpoints and worldlines, it would be better to think through the actual computer program the simulation uses.
Good point, but I believe that this is what the anime intended. Because if you look at it, this is what Okabe does, changes the past with the least effects. You are totally correct this amount of changes is actually a lot
It's not proof. And that's not what worldlines are. It's a story trope that that is how time travel consistency works, where "observable details" are things that the character or audience could notice, instead of being almost everything that's not microscopic.
I don't think that's correct. They had 400 people receive some questions, and only kept the questions that were solved by at least 2 people. The 400 people didn't all receive 120 questions (they'd have probably got bored).
If you go through the example problems you'll notice that most are testing the "aha" moment. Once you do a couple, you know what to expect, but with larger grids you have to stay focused and keep track of a few things to get it right.
6? That can't be right. I don't know how big a GCU is, so the scale could be up to 1 OOM off, but a full redirection of all simulation capacity should let it integrate out further than that.
For ball-to-ball collisions, 6 is already a highly conservative estimate-- this is basically a chaotic system (outcome after a few iterations, while deterministic, is extremely sensitive to exact starting conditions).
The error scales up exponentially with the number of (ball-to-ball) collisions.
So if the initial ball position is off by "half a pixel" (=> always non-zero) this gets amplified extremely quickly.
Your intuition about the problem is probably distorted by considering/having experienced (less sensitive) ball/wall collisions.
reply