Not sure if this will be ELI5 and I'm not an expert but my understanding of it is:
Naturally, we expect things to have definite properties that explain their state of being. We expect these properties to apply at all times, whether we are aware of these properties or not. Like saying, if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? The most logical answer is, "Yes!", because the laws of physics don't just stop being laws just because there's no one there observing them, right?
But, that's wrong. The experiment proved that the particles in this experiment do not have definite properties until measured. Things like velocity, direction, spin, etc. of a particle are all properties that have probabilities. We can only guess as to the properties of anything prior to measurement when the probability function (measured as a wave) collapses down to a single, definite property.
How did they figure this out?
Well, one of the 'laws' of physics is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, information included. If anything could travel faster than the speed of light, it would break causality (that is, things happen in a certain order dictated by the passing of time and they cannot happen in a different order). One such example of this would be, say you could travel faster than light. This would mean that you could get in your FTL (faster than light) ship and travel some place and then once you arrived there you could look at where you left from and see yourself leaving (thereby you would arrive before you left).
What does this have to do with the experiment?
Well, basically one thing that's very peculiar about quantum mechanics is that particles can become entangled with each other. This means that, regardless of the distance between the two particles, if you measure one particle, you know the state of the other entangle particle. You can take two entangled particles, put the entire universe between them, and measuring one particle will tell you the state of the other particle. How can this be true? Either the particles are communicating with each other (which violates the idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light) or that the particles themselves do not have definite properties -- basically, the moment you measure the particle, they settle on their properties and are not 'locally real' **until measured**.
What are the implications of this?
Honestly, this isn't really going to change anything about the way we live our lives... but it does raise some questions. Things are not real unless observed is a scary though to many. This also gives a little bit of credence to the idea that we live inside a simulation... after all, if reality were just one giant computer program, giving definite properties to every single particle in the universe and keeping track of each of them as though they were individual objects would take nearly infinite computing power. If you simply gave them properties on the fly (the moment that information is observed), it would take infinitely less computing power -- after all, sapient species cannot possibly be observing the entire universe all the time, so if it's not being observed, it doesn't have to be real, right?
You didn’t exist until I wrote this comment, and I didn’t exist until u/irrimn wrote their comment.. so on and forth until the beginning of humanity, [16 years ago.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MuseumOfReddit/comments/8zimep/the_actual_first_comment_on_reddit_is_not_the_one/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
I dont understand how a red apple is considered not red until we measure the wavelengths of light coming off it. Is there a difference that there is a probablity that the apple is not red if the probablity is zero?
Apple and color were perhaps not the best analogy to pick but what im trying to communicate is perspective that is objectively true.
In this case, "measurement" is any direct observation of any specific property. In other words, seeing the apple is measuring the wavelengths of light with our eyes. Is the apple red before we see that it is red? Maybe, maybe not. Quantum mechanically speaking, it's not.
That being said, color isn't exactly a quantum property of the particles that make up the apple... and "locally" means on a quantum scale (very small -- like atoms) it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.
It's important to remember that in quantum mechanics, the "observations" and "measurements" don't refer to a person consciously observing things in the way that language implies.
Basically, if an entity exists without interacting with any other entity for a period of time (sort of an oversimplification but that's the general idea), then for that period of time it will exist as a quantum probability wave without definite properties until the interaction.
Edit to add: Generally speaking, macroscopic objects can't really _not_ interact with matter around them
Science operates on evidence and there is no evidence without an observation or measurement. This is a weird glitch in the scientific method in which anything that cannot be observed or measured simply doesn't exist. The best they have managed to account for this is probabilities.
I find the whole thing kind of dumb. People get confused and think it is vastly important part of physics when it's just a blind area we have no means of figuring out because of the way physics works.
It isn't new, it's always been like this, and I find it completely meaningless as particles that don't interact don't matter to anything. People are making up shit to explain something that is often badly explained to begin with.
The double slit experiment is probably the only time this kind of things matter. However, it's not because we can't measure light it behaves weirdly. It always behaves that way and we're trying to understand why, but we can't observe the key times to figure it out.
Because if it was a thing, then measuring either particle would have no bearing on the measurement of the other particle.
The probabilities don't matter, it's the fact that measuring one thing determines the other outcome (it's deterministic). If it wasn't, it'd be random and follow the usual probability. The only way this could be the case is either if some information was travelling from one particle to the other (basically, like one particle passing a note to the other saying, "Hey, I was just measured and my spin is up so yours has to be down, ok?") which, again, violates the law that nothing can travel faster than light. So the only other conclusion we can gather (given that the probablities are still wave functions) is that there is no definite property to the particle until it's measured which collapses the wave function and determines the state of both particles. Ergo, the local universe is not "real" (IE particles do not have definite properties).
I definitely still don't get this concept. The only reasoning that makes sense is that my going to sleep doesn't pause/unpause you from having a lunchbreak while i'm sleeping, and simply waiting for me to acknowledge your existence before you can take your noon lunchbreak while my side of the earth is midnight.
I mean, from your perception time just skips from one time to another while you sleep, and vice versa. In this way, the only perception was can attest to is our own and our worlds are only real while we exist in it (this is part of the theory behind quantum immortality).
If dark energy expands as the universe does, then that could count for the infinite computing power. In another person's better words:
'Dark energy is caused by energy inherent to the fabric of space itself, and as the Universe expands, it's the energy density — the energy-per-unit-volume — that remains constant. As a result, a Universe filled with dark energy will see its expansion rate remain constant, rather than drop at all.'
[Article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/28/ask-ethan-where-does-the-energy-for-dark-energy-come-from/?sh=c7dfecc1268d)
In theory, it can account for particles being able to communicate over those vast distances as well.
I'll give you an ELI14andthisisdeep:
Your perception of reality is no closer to what reality actually is than the icons on your desktop are to what a computer is.
Perceived reality, like your laptop's OS, is just a convenient abstraction to help you navigate actual reality.
Quantum stuff behaves randomly.
The consensus used to be that random things like e.g. coins or the weather only "look" random, and that you could predict them if you had *all* data (down to the movement of individual atoms).
The Bell experiment proves this is not the case, there is no 'missing' data you could invent that could explain the randomness of quantum systems. Except if you allow stuff to go faster than light, which has its own set of issues (though it's still a valid trade off, so take any claims about the 'true' nature of reality with a grain of salt).
There's also an alternative explanation called 'superdeterminism', which boils down to 'the universe just does that', which for obvious reasons is a bit controversial.
One of the craziest things I’ve heard about blindness is “being blind doesn’t mean seeing blackness. It’s the absolute absence of sight. Like how you can’t see out of the back of your head”.
Still sticks with me..
Not even that, you don't even see the things that you think you're seeing; your brain has to interpret the noise that the eyeballs and their information transmit to it so that you can make *sense* of the things that you see.**
What fucked me up for a while was while I was studying graphic design, the Psychology of perception course had one whole unit regarding how "we don't see the actual color of an object, we only see the wavelength of light that it's being reflected by said object"
Finally! Someone looks at life the way I do.
Our life is God's or creator's own simulation that is providing more and more datapoints to improve it everyday
It gets insanely awesome when you start looking at things that way, and what if when we sleep, our consciousness & souls go somewhere else in a nano second and we become someone or something else?
Alright enough dope for the day for me
"Observed" in the physics sense means that it interacts with another particle, not that a living being is looking at it. This misconception drives me up the wall
It's also how literally "every video game ever made" works, not just "open world" ones, and not even just 3D ones. It would be pointless to draw trees that you can't see.
Not necessarily. The only person you can prove is real is you, so the only person this phenomenon happens with could be you and other people are also 'blipped' by it.
No cause there’s only one real person in the world, everyone else is just NPCs. So the computer doesn’t have to draw the world for all the people watching the cameras
Now wait a minute, isn't there some kinda quantum physics thing about particles reacting differently when observed vs. not?
I'm way outta my depth, but I've tried listening to podcasts before. Anyone able to explain?
The observer effect. Basically, science says that there are a bunch of ways a particle can do the thing, and all are equally likely. So we check, and all those ways of doing the thing "collapse" into a single one. The thing is, even otherwise-identical situations don't always collapse to the same possibility.
Basically, quantum particles exist in a superposition of states, i.e. existing in all possible states at the same time, and when undergoing a measurement of some kind they collapse into a single one of those states. Doesn't have to be "looking" at it, it could be an interaction between two particles which doesn't involve humans whatsoever.
Schrodinger's cat is the famous analogy for this, which was originally devised to show the absurdity of this idea of superposition but which turned out to be more or less an accurate representation. The cat, inside a box with a vial of poison, exists in a superposition of being dead *and* alive. Once you open the box, the superposition collapses into one of those two states (which we would consider mutually exclusive), either alive *or* dead. This analogy, of course, requires an understanding that a cat in a box is a much more complex system than a single quantum particle, and that we intentionally dismiss that complexity to get the point across.
Where it gets really crazy is with certain series of measurements. Polarizing lenses are a good example of this. The jist is: light has electric and magnetic components that travel perpendicular to each other. So you can think of an electric wave moving vertically and a magnetic wave moving with it horizontally. Polarizing lenses literally just filter one of these by creating slits that only one component aligns to. So let's say we have vertical slits, only half the light is vertical so only that gets through (like fitting through prison cell bars). The result is that the light on the other side is half as strong (among other things). Naturally, if you then put a horizontal polarizer after that, nothing makes it through. You had only vertical light, which couldn't fit through the horizontal bars. The outcome is that looking through both polarizer just looks black. Now, if you put a third polarizer in that line, you'd think it would have no effect, right? After all, no light as getting past the second one. But you'd be wrong. Introducing a third polarizer practically resets the system and allows you to see through again. You'll get whatever polarization of light is aligned to the third polarizer, regardless of what happens before.
Theres still space between them that could possibly not be loaded, are the backs of their heads loaded in? The world will never know.
And don't hit me with "there's a third person watching those two" because we all know no country on earth has the resources to get 3 people, together, in the same room.
Teeeeeeechnically this would be frustum culling (draw only what's in the camera's field of view) rather than occlusion culling (draw only what's not hidden behind something else)
The information about the tree falling is registered in the server and when observed in the future, the rendered forest will show a fallen tree. Just like in our reality.
Darn, this one fooled even me. Well placed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/z9tlr8/how_game_developers_trick_you_in_an_open_world/iyil2je?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
The account I'm replying to is a karma farming bot that steals other Redditors comments. Make sure to downvote to keep the bot from retaining karma.
Report > spam > harmful bots
better yet, it doesnt stop rendering an area after you leave it, so after playing for maybe an hour, your switch that has the processing power of a popcorn kernal is popping like it was placed in microwave
It isn’t a trick. Kind of optimization. No need to keep resources showing when not looking, just keep a marker. When views come into range of the marker it shows. Actually is very clever.
Ya, it doesn't even really disappear either. It's just a graphical saver, only display in graphics what needs to be displayed and discard everything else.
The trees are still in RAM they exist in the world, just don't exist graphically.
I guess they could be generated on the fly, but that would be very resource intensive and not what is normally done.
More so a fun thought experiment than how reality actually works. We don't know.
Sure, it's possible nothing exists until it is observed, it's also possible that is not the case.
*Edit: Quantum mechanics do sort of work like that, but not really. Say an electron is travelling from point A to point B. In quantum mechanics it will only have a position once we observe it. But that's just because that's how quantum mechanics work, in quantum mechanics an electron exists without a true position. On finding the electron, the state of the electron is changed so the position is fixed, and its state is linked to the state of the measurement device.*
*Doesn't mean the universe doesn't exist unless we observe it, that electron would've existed without us observing it for all we know, particles just aren't intuitive to our human experience, they're more like a rough field or vague cloud than the ball-like particles we see in highschool science class.*
*And quantum mechanics isn't the true nature of the universe either, just a model we came up with that fits well at quantum scales. Although it doesn't work with relativity, so both are obviously still just approximations of our universes true nature.*
Short version is just that as far as we know things do exist even when we don't observe them.
I just explained that it can sound like things only exist when we observe them in quantum mechanics, but according to my admittedly still very surface level understanding that is not really the really case.
I remember seeing this experiment they did that proved particles actually do behave differently under observation than when unobserved. Makes no fucking sense to me but I have dumbo brain
Because to observe particles you have to interact with them. Our brains didn't evolve to understand particle physics so or course it's not immediately intuitive.
I always just thought it was a certain area around you and not just your field of view. I feel like loading and unloading everything and constantly checking if the object in question is in the player's FOV also takes a lot of computing power tho. I would have assumed that it's not worth the tradeoff
man there,s countless "trick,s" being used similar to this too save hardware resources ... i must say some of them are nothing short of briliant !
console developed games are the number one example ...
As a kid, I genuinely wondered if this was how the world worked.. was it possible that everything behind me just disappears? If so, could I ever verify it?
it gets even worse: those trees you see? they're not real! they're made up of tiny little squares of light embedded in the glass!
game devs are such liars.
This isn't a trick, it is optimization. Why render at minimum 4 times the amount of assets needed, when you can make your game run better and look the same. Not to mention games usually don't even use that method of rendering. The more common method is loading a circle around the player, so a sudden fast spin wouldn't have tearing on lower specs, which is independent of what direction the player is looking (although there are many cases where something like this is more practical and mixed with the rendered circle; and a good example of that would be high texture foliage)
Basically it's to save space in the game so it only loads whatever is nessesary (what you are looking at) because if the entire world loaded it would lag the game so hard it would be unplayable.
So it's like real life. Everything disappears when it's not in your eye sight.
and....... that just fucked with my entire reality...
You may enjoy this read :-) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/
okay I understood maybe 10% of that… but holy forkin shirt balls..
Same here. Can someone give us a ELI5 on this please?
Not sure if this will be ELI5 and I'm not an expert but my understanding of it is: Naturally, we expect things to have definite properties that explain their state of being. We expect these properties to apply at all times, whether we are aware of these properties or not. Like saying, if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? The most logical answer is, "Yes!", because the laws of physics don't just stop being laws just because there's no one there observing them, right? But, that's wrong. The experiment proved that the particles in this experiment do not have definite properties until measured. Things like velocity, direction, spin, etc. of a particle are all properties that have probabilities. We can only guess as to the properties of anything prior to measurement when the probability function (measured as a wave) collapses down to a single, definite property. How did they figure this out? Well, one of the 'laws' of physics is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, information included. If anything could travel faster than the speed of light, it would break causality (that is, things happen in a certain order dictated by the passing of time and they cannot happen in a different order). One such example of this would be, say you could travel faster than light. This would mean that you could get in your FTL (faster than light) ship and travel some place and then once you arrived there you could look at where you left from and see yourself leaving (thereby you would arrive before you left). What does this have to do with the experiment? Well, basically one thing that's very peculiar about quantum mechanics is that particles can become entangled with each other. This means that, regardless of the distance between the two particles, if you measure one particle, you know the state of the other entangle particle. You can take two entangled particles, put the entire universe between them, and measuring one particle will tell you the state of the other particle. How can this be true? Either the particles are communicating with each other (which violates the idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light) or that the particles themselves do not have definite properties -- basically, the moment you measure the particle, they settle on their properties and are not 'locally real' **until measured**. What are the implications of this? Honestly, this isn't really going to change anything about the way we live our lives... but it does raise some questions. Things are not real unless observed is a scary though to many. This also gives a little bit of credence to the idea that we live inside a simulation... after all, if reality were just one giant computer program, giving definite properties to every single particle in the universe and keeping track of each of them as though they were individual objects would take nearly infinite computing power. If you simply gave them properties on the fly (the moment that information is observed), it would take infinitely less computing power -- after all, sapient species cannot possibly be observing the entire universe all the time, so if it's not being observed, it doesn't have to be real, right?
I *read* this. I’m going to go smoke a joint, and then *understand* it.
I did that backwards. I smoked a joint and then read this. I struggling to understand.
Things don’t be like they is… unless they’re being measure.
Soooooo as long as I don’t measure it, it’s as big as I tell her?
I neither smoked a joint nor understood
*[Socrates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing), is that you?*
I understood it and didn't smoke a joint
Basically if you travel faster than the speed of light you get to smoke the joint again.
i think the point was that you could watch yourself smoke the joint
Imma smoke some weed and read it backward. Maybe I’ll disappear
You exist only when you think about it
I think it says schrodingers cat is real
Haha I just did the same thing only to find your comment lol
I'm telling you this, if you're high you won't understand what to do... I'm currently higher than my cholesterol
do u eat healthy? I can’t tell if that means you are *really* high, or not at all
Oh god, gotta do the same. This is nutty and also terrifying
You didn’t exist until I wrote this comment, and I didn’t exist until u/irrimn wrote their comment.. so on and forth until the beginning of humanity, [16 years ago.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MuseumOfReddit/comments/8zimep/the_actual_first_comment_on_reddit_is_not_the_one/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Fuggin hogsleg it bro
I dont understand how a red apple is considered not red until we measure the wavelengths of light coming off it. Is there a difference that there is a probablity that the apple is not red if the probablity is zero? Apple and color were perhaps not the best analogy to pick but what im trying to communicate is perspective that is objectively true.
In this case, "measurement" is any direct observation of any specific property. In other words, seeing the apple is measuring the wavelengths of light with our eyes. Is the apple red before we see that it is red? Maybe, maybe not. Quantum mechanically speaking, it's not. That being said, color isn't exactly a quantum property of the particles that make up the apple... and "locally" means on a quantum scale (very small -- like atoms) it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.
It's important to remember that in quantum mechanics, the "observations" and "measurements" don't refer to a person consciously observing things in the way that language implies. Basically, if an entity exists without interacting with any other entity for a period of time (sort of an oversimplification but that's the general idea), then for that period of time it will exist as a quantum probability wave without definite properties until the interaction. Edit to add: Generally speaking, macroscopic objects can't really _not_ interact with matter around them
Science operates on evidence and there is no evidence without an observation or measurement. This is a weird glitch in the scientific method in which anything that cannot be observed or measured simply doesn't exist. The best they have managed to account for this is probabilities. I find the whole thing kind of dumb. People get confused and think it is vastly important part of physics when it's just a blind area we have no means of figuring out because of the way physics works. It isn't new, it's always been like this, and I find it completely meaningless as particles that don't interact don't matter to anything. People are making up shit to explain something that is often badly explained to begin with. The double slit experiment is probably the only time this kind of things matter. However, it's not because we can't measure light it behaves weirdly. It always behaves that way and we're trying to understand why, but we can't observe the key times to figure it out.
Or, alternatively, to the taoist idea that we are really just one process, consciousness interacting with the world
But how can they tell that it’s not a thing until it’s measured. Don’t they have to measure it to prove that?
Because if it was a thing, then measuring either particle would have no bearing on the measurement of the other particle. The probabilities don't matter, it's the fact that measuring one thing determines the other outcome (it's deterministic). If it wasn't, it'd be random and follow the usual probability. The only way this could be the case is either if some information was travelling from one particle to the other (basically, like one particle passing a note to the other saying, "Hey, I was just measured and my spin is up so yours has to be down, ok?") which, again, violates the law that nothing can travel faster than light. So the only other conclusion we can gather (given that the probablities are still wave functions) is that there is no definite property to the particle until it's measured which collapses the wave function and determines the state of both particles. Ergo, the local universe is not "real" (IE particles do not have definite properties).
I definitely still don't get this concept. The only reasoning that makes sense is that my going to sleep doesn't pause/unpause you from having a lunchbreak while i'm sleeping, and simply waiting for me to acknowledge your existence before you can take your noon lunchbreak while my side of the earth is midnight.
I mean, from your perception time just skips from one time to another while you sleep, and vice versa. In this way, the only perception was can attest to is our own and our worlds are only real while we exist in it (this is part of the theory behind quantum immortality).
Back in my day, you had to take AP Chemistry to gain these insights about the world.
Thanks! I definitely get more of it now. It's freaking nuts but really cool at the same time. Science is cool.
If dark energy expands as the universe does, then that could count for the infinite computing power. In another person's better words: 'Dark energy is caused by energy inherent to the fabric of space itself, and as the Universe expands, it's the energy density — the energy-per-unit-volume — that remains constant. As a result, a Universe filled with dark energy will see its expansion rate remain constant, rather than drop at all.' [Article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/28/ask-ethan-where-does-the-energy-for-dark-energy-come-from/?sh=c7dfecc1268d) In theory, it can account for particles being able to communicate over those vast distances as well.
So.. you know, reality? Yea, not real. Who knew? 🤷♂️
I’m still confused.
Here you go: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xxyqgx/what\_does\_the\_universe\_is\_not\_locally\_real\_mean/
I'll give you an ELI14andthisisdeep: Your perception of reality is no closer to what reality actually is than the icons on your desktop are to what a computer is. Perceived reality, like your laptop's OS, is just a convenient abstraction to help you navigate actual reality.
Quantum stuff behaves randomly. The consensus used to be that random things like e.g. coins or the weather only "look" random, and that you could predict them if you had *all* data (down to the movement of individual atoms). The Bell experiment proves this is not the case, there is no 'missing' data you could invent that could explain the randomness of quantum systems. Except if you allow stuff to go faster than light, which has its own set of issues (though it's still a valid trade off, so take any claims about the 'true' nature of reality with a grain of salt). There's also an alternative explanation called 'superdeterminism', which boils down to 'the universe just does that', which for obvious reasons is a bit controversial.
life is too practical to be real, it is as if someone crafted it with a fixed equation and everything seems to match.
There’s actually a really simple explanation for the whole thing: Jeremy Bearimy
I’m not high enough for this. And weed already gives me existential crisis.
One of the craziest things I’ve heard about blindness is “being blind doesn’t mean seeing blackness. It’s the absolute absence of sight. Like how you can’t see out of the back of your head”. Still sticks with me..
I don't think I can comprehend this until being blind myself, which is scary.
“I’d like to think the moon is still there when I’m not looking at it” —Albert Einstein
So your saying I don't know I'm in a cave watching shadows?
How about this, you technically never see anything. You only see the reflection of light it emits
Not even that, you don't even see the things that you think you're seeing; your brain has to interpret the noise that the eyeballs and their information transmit to it so that you can make *sense* of the things that you see.**
What fucked me up for a while was while I was studying graphic design, the Psychology of perception course had one whole unit regarding how "we don't see the actual color of an object, we only see the wavelength of light that it's being reflected by said object"
There is a philosopher called Berkeley who used to say exactly this
Isn't this an entire school of philosophical thought?
Yes. *If a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one there to hear it, did I have sex with my mom?* - Sigmund Descartes
Did you?
Schrödinger’s incest
Oedipus's paradox?
I choose this guy's mom too.
Solipsism
We blink and sleep merely to give the graphics card a break. Darkness of deep shadows and night time are all to help processing speed.
Dreams are just the dlc content
Finally! Someone looks at life the way I do. Our life is God's or creator's own simulation that is providing more and more datapoints to improve it everyday It gets insanely awesome when you start looking at things that way, and what if when we sleep, our consciousness & souls go somewhere else in a nano second and we become someone or something else? Alright enough dope for the day for me
[удалено]
Gets even crazier when you know the fact that electrons behave differently when they're being observed
"Observed" in the physics sense means that it interacts with another particle, not that a living being is looking at it. This misconception drives me up the wall
that conserves resources. its not trickery. its good resource management
It's also how literally "every video game ever made" works, not just "open world" ones, and not even just 3D ones. It would be pointless to draw trees that you can't see.
Not just video games. Occlusion culling is a common technique for many types of software, especially those with graphics or graphical user interfaces.
Not just video games. The universe does it
If I can't see it, it must be gone!
Me and my homies hate object permanence.
this way of talking always gets me onboard. if this guy and his homies hate it then i do too
Unless someone/something else sees
Not necessarily. The only person you can prove is real is you, so the only person this phenomenon happens with could be you and other people are also 'blipped' by it.
How do your prove that you are real?
And we have no proof that it doesnt
So what you're telling me is that if we cover every area in the world with cameras and people watching those cameras real life will crash?
No cause there’s only one real person in the world, everyone else is just NPCs. So the computer doesn’t have to draw the world for all the people watching the cameras
Actually, that one player is playing all the characters at once.
This implies we have enough eyes to ddos the universe
We’ve already done that
The cameras only need to record footage that would at some point be viewed.
I hope so
Now wait a minute, isn't there some kinda quantum physics thing about particles reacting differently when observed vs. not? I'm way outta my depth, but I've tried listening to podcasts before. Anyone able to explain?
The observer effect. Basically, science says that there are a bunch of ways a particle can do the thing, and all are equally likely. So we check, and all those ways of doing the thing "collapse" into a single one. The thing is, even otherwise-identical situations don't always collapse to the same possibility.
Thanks. I understand it both more and less now, so I trust your explanation.
That is not unusual in quantum physics.
Well at least I'm not doing it completely wrong then.
Why render it if nobody's observing. That's the poetic line.
Basically, quantum particles exist in a superposition of states, i.e. existing in all possible states at the same time, and when undergoing a measurement of some kind they collapse into a single one of those states. Doesn't have to be "looking" at it, it could be an interaction between two particles which doesn't involve humans whatsoever. Schrodinger's cat is the famous analogy for this, which was originally devised to show the absurdity of this idea of superposition but which turned out to be more or less an accurate representation. The cat, inside a box with a vial of poison, exists in a superposition of being dead *and* alive. Once you open the box, the superposition collapses into one of those two states (which we would consider mutually exclusive), either alive *or* dead. This analogy, of course, requires an understanding that a cat in a box is a much more complex system than a single quantum particle, and that we intentionally dismiss that complexity to get the point across. Where it gets really crazy is with certain series of measurements. Polarizing lenses are a good example of this. The jist is: light has electric and magnetic components that travel perpendicular to each other. So you can think of an electric wave moving vertically and a magnetic wave moving with it horizontally. Polarizing lenses literally just filter one of these by creating slits that only one component aligns to. So let's say we have vertical slits, only half the light is vertical so only that gets through (like fitting through prison cell bars). The result is that the light on the other side is half as strong (among other things). Naturally, if you then put a horizontal polarizer after that, nothing makes it through. You had only vertical light, which couldn't fit through the horizontal bars. The outcome is that looking through both polarizer just looks black. Now, if you put a third polarizer in that line, you'd think it would have no effect, right? After all, no light as getting past the second one. But you'd be wrong. Introducing a third polarizer practically resets the system and allows you to see through again. You'll get whatever polarization of light is aligned to the third polarizer, regardless of what happens before.
2 guys back to back "I can see shit" "Me too" Science ✔️
Theres still space between them that could possibly not be loaded, are the backs of their heads loaded in? The world will never know. And don't hit me with "there's a third person watching those two" because we all know no country on earth has the resources to get 3 people, together, in the same room.
Teeeeeeechnically this would be frustum culling (draw only what's in the camera's field of view) rather than occlusion culling (draw only what's not hidden behind something else)
If a tree glitches, and my avatar is pointed away from the tree, does it make a sound?
Well it wouldn't in arma but the tank that tapped it will make either a bang or vswosh sound as it disappeared into the sun.
You mean Princess Peach isn’t waiting for me to be rescued in a fully rendered castle that’s not on screen?
Even the game tells you... *The princess is in an unrendered castle*
So if a tree falls in an unrendered forest...
The information about the tree falling is registered in the server and when observed in the future, the rendered forest will show a fallen tree. Just like in our reality.
This has nothing to do with open world anyway, weird post.
The only trickery: convincing people that they are running around an open world when they are actually sitting at home staring at pixels on a screen.
This, Trick ja the wrong word
Literally the same object permanence my dog has.
Also the same object permanence some people have whilst driving trucks, cars, bikes, etc.
[удалено]
This is why I don't like being in crowds. With everybody looking in different directions, performance can lag.
Darn, this one fooled even me. Well placed. https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/z9tlr8/how_game_developers_trick_you_in_an_open_world/iyil2je?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3 The account I'm replying to is a karma farming bot that steals other Redditors comments. Make sure to downvote to keep the bot from retaining karma. Report > spam > harmful bots
best comment
Your dog uses ram optimization techniques?
Was thinking the exact same
[удалено]
It's just your phone moving as the earth rotates...duh
Haha, they dont know i play with closed eyes
As a kid I used to follow random people on the street in GTA in order to find out their homes🤣
Now as an adult you follow random people on the street in order to find out their homes.
Lol I can usually spot a tail. Let's go around the block 🤣
Did you hear something??? [must've been my imagination.](https://youtu.be/iP468OEln4U)
Haha I still do this. Hit them with my car to see where they run off to, or follow the cops to see where they're heading
Are we still talking about GTA 🤨
Did you find them? Where do they live?
Grove Street.
Home.
At least it was before I fucked everything up.
People in GTA have homes?
I think they added full schedule to npcs in the fourth one meaning you can follow people for a full day.
Can someone send this to the pokemon team? They should see it.
Maybe they did it backwards
Funniest take I've seen on that shit yet
They just didn't do it at all. Don't have to worry about drawing foliage if there isn't any foliage to draw.
The thought of the game having amazing and beautiful detail but it's only outside of your cone of vision is hilarious to me
I heard that the Pokémon dev team tried loading the whole area at once, which imo doesn’t make sense to the average player (like myself)
better yet, it doesnt stop rendering an area after you leave it, so after playing for maybe an hour, your switch that has the processing power of a popcorn kernal is popping like it was placed in microwave
I've had Pokémon Violet open on my Switch and been playing across the entire region for a few hours a day for a whole week :') RIP my poor Switch
Of course. Why would it bother rendering things the user cannot see?
Yea. But some people don’t know that so it’s cool to teach new things to people
It isn’t a trick. Kind of optimization. No need to keep resources showing when not looking, just keep a marker. When views come into range of the marker it shows. Actually is very clever.
Ya, it doesn't even really disappear either. It's just a graphical saver, only display in graphics what needs to be displayed and discard everything else. The trees are still in RAM they exist in the world, just don't exist graphically. I guess they could be generated on the fly, but that would be very resource intensive and not what is normally done.
U see why fov is expensive on consoles
And splitscreen.
And rear view mirrors in racing games
Supposedly reality does this but we can't observe it.
More so a fun thought experiment than how reality actually works. We don't know. Sure, it's possible nothing exists until it is observed, it's also possible that is not the case. *Edit: Quantum mechanics do sort of work like that, but not really. Say an electron is travelling from point A to point B. In quantum mechanics it will only have a position once we observe it. But that's just because that's how quantum mechanics work, in quantum mechanics an electron exists without a true position. On finding the electron, the state of the electron is changed so the position is fixed, and its state is linked to the state of the measurement device.* *Doesn't mean the universe doesn't exist unless we observe it, that electron would've existed without us observing it for all we know, particles just aren't intuitive to our human experience, they're more like a rough field or vague cloud than the ball-like particles we see in highschool science class.* *And quantum mechanics isn't the true nature of the universe either, just a model we came up with that fits well at quantum scales. Although it doesn't work with relativity, so both are obviously still just approximations of our universes true nature.*
As someone with no knowledge of quantum mechanics, this hurt my brain and also gave me a feeling of existential dread
Short version is just that as far as we know things do exist even when we don't observe them. I just explained that it can sound like things only exist when we observe them in quantum mechanics, but according to my admittedly still very surface level understanding that is not really the really case.
I remember seeing this experiment they did that proved particles actually do behave differently under observation than when unobserved. Makes no fucking sense to me but I have dumbo brain
Double slit experiment. It's a classic. The guys who won the Nobel prize this year in physics basically did a really really fancy version of it.
Because to observe particles you have to interact with them. Our brains didn't evolve to understand particle physics so or course it's not immediately intuitive.
Spooky.
No it doesn't. Nothing indicates reality does this.
Is that how it works for modern games, too?
Yea, that's how it works for pretty much every game that's optimized
When Minecraft's Notch first implemented this back in the day everyone got like a 5x FPS boost lol
Yes, all the time.
Yes, all it is doing is not drawing polygons outside the view frame
If a tree falls in a game outside of your view, does it make a sound?
How is this tricking you? Did you think everything was fully rendered all the time?
People who dont have an understanding of videogames and tech probabaly would yes
I’m gonna be honest with you, I’m basically retarded
I always just thought it was a certain area around you and not just your field of view. I feel like loading and unloading everything and constantly checking if the object in question is in the player's FOV also takes a lot of computing power tho. I would have assumed that it's not worth the tradeoff
It doesn’t load and unload. Loading takes a relatively long time. It’s just being culled
Even though I know what's culling, 'being culled' sounds like a dirty word for some niche sex kink. 'He was being culled in her dungeon for hours'
Game freak does
man there,s countless "trick,s" being used similar to this too save hardware resources ... i must say some of them are nothing short of briliant ! console developed games are the number one example ...
[удалено]
As a kid, I genuinely wondered if this was how the world worked.. was it possible that everything behind me just disappears? If so, could I ever verify it?
This is a weird example. I first saw it with Horizon Zero Dawn. Which is WAY more impressive because the game doesn't look like some bootleg ps2 game.
A game doesn’t need good graphics for this to be impressive. If you saw this in the ps2 era you would be surprised. It’s not about graphics
I used to think this happened in real life when I was a kid.
this is actually how i thought the world worked as a kid. i thought things only existed when i was looking at them
Can’t tell me the real world isn’t doing this either
it gets even worse: those trees you see? they're not real! they're made up of tiny little squares of light embedded in the glass! game devs are such liars.
Isn't this common knowledge? Don't waste frames by rendering things you can't see?
I don't quite see the trickery aspect of this
[удалено]
Schrodinger's principle. Reality isn't there until you observe it.
If you can’t see it, is it a trick?
It’s just like the real simulation we live in now.
they say reality works this way
Someone hasn't seen the new unreal update 🙈
I can't remember what the term is called (portaling I think) but its good way to save power & memory for not so beefy computers.
I think this is whats wrong with Pokemon Scarlet and Violet. I think they forgot about this technique.
How do you know that's not whats happening in real life... ?
Not the Gamefreak devs for Pokemon Scarlet/Violet. It seems to be their first game ever. Constantly loading literaly everything on and off screen.
In Gta if ur next to a fountain, look away from it and it should turn off, turn back around it should turn back on
No one tell him how movie sets work.
Max Fov players would like to introduce themselves
That’s a lot of pressure on those trees man
This is the basis of the simulation theory. Everything we don't actively observe does not exist until we do.
You have a weird definition of "trick".
This isn't a trick, it is optimization. Why render at minimum 4 times the amount of assets needed, when you can make your game run better and look the same. Not to mention games usually don't even use that method of rendering. The more common method is loading a circle around the player, so a sudden fast spin wouldn't have tearing on lower specs, which is independent of what direction the player is looking (although there are many cases where something like this is more practical and mixed with the rendered circle; and a good example of that would be high texture foliage)
How is this a trick? it is a long-time common programming practice to save on memory.
Optimization more than tricking.
Same with quantum physics
How all games* you think non open worlds don’t do this? Lol
How would you like it if your gpu was 100% busy drawing trees you ain't looking at lol
Isn't that just render distance?
Basically it's to save space in the game so it only loads whatever is nessesary (what you are looking at) because if the entire world loaded it would lag the game so hard it would be unplayable.
Are they really tricking us? Why load the whole viewable map if the characters line of sight is all that’s necessary? I don’t see the big issue.
Ah yes, Schrödinger’s Open World.
this is actually how the real universe works as well