high playing mario bros. . in PIXELS or nun us:. So when I see a blurry image... the universe has dropped into low resolution to allow for faster play? high playing mario bros in PIXELS or nun us: So when I see a blurry image the universe has dropped into low resolution to allow for faster play?
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (90)
[ 90 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#1 - mraye
Reply +137 123456789123345869
(06/22/2013) [-]
So when I see a blurry image... the universe has dropped into low resolution to allow for faster play?
So when I see a blurry image... the universe has dropped into low resolution to allow for faster play?
User avatar #69 to #1 - popkornking
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Yeah, for every megablur you experience your frame rate jumps from ∞ to ∞
#7 to #1 - ilgattozaiga
Reply +28 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
That's what happens for fast moving objects.... oh my god
That's what happens for fast moving objects.... oh my god
#35 - absolutnignog **User deleted account**
+21 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #67 to #35 - rapsuskiller
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Both are ecually well used with this caption: 10Guy is all about high moments and highdeas (like this one could be a highdea)
The sudden realization guy is used for, you know, realizations, as this one
#75 to #67 - absolutnignog **User deleted account**
-2 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#77 to #75 - rapsuskiller
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Oh **** me, I don´t know the names to all the ******* memes ever invented. I should really know my meme, right? How can I be so stupid to not know the name to every ******* meme?
Oh **** me, I don´t know the names to all the ******* memes ever invented. I should really know my meme, right? How can I be so stupid to not know the name to every ******* meme?
#101 to #77 - absolutnignog **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #110 to #101 - rapsuskiller
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/24/2013) [-]
U r 1 cheeky cunt m8
#112 to #110 - absolutnignog **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #113 to #112 - rapsuskiller
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/24/2013) [-]
Man, not everything has to be perfect, you know? Right, I didn´t use the exact name of the meme and you ******* understood what I was saying. Yous because you are a fussy bitch, that is not pretext to force the WHOLE ******* WORLD to use perfect vocaboulary. Douche
#92 to #35 - cramperzombie
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
The fat **** looking into the camera ruined this meme for everyone.
#9 - Logicaltightrope
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Actually, the Planckslength is the 'pixel' of the universe. The tiniest distance measurable (if you try to measure 1/10th of it, you will end up measuring 10 times its length, it is truly the smallest possible). Something on the scale of 1.6 * 10^-35 meters.
#10 to #9 - lieutenantshitface **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #27 to #10 - demicus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Because pixels are also used as a measurement as well as their primary purpose of changing colour.

Think about it. How do you measure images? Sure, you can use inches or millimeters or the like, but you can also say it's 300px by 800px. A pixel is considered a unit of measurement due to its uniformity.
#29 to #27 - lieutenantshitface **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #104 to #29 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/24/2013) [-]
I interpreted it as a 'pixel' being a unit of resolution. The planck's length is sort of a basic unit of resolution, being a unit of distance. It can go either way, that or atoms, depending on how you see it.
#105 to #104 - lieutenantshitface **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #109 to #105 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/24/2013) [-]
There's more than one way to think of it. I interpret pixels as the smallest resolution, not necessarily the smallest resolution that we can see in our eyes, but the smallest unit by which something can be measured.

Atoms also make sense, considering they make things up just like colored pixels in a screen do.
#111 to #109 - lieutenantshitface **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#12 to #9 - anon id: e2c74169
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Like **** face said, it's a distance, if you said some **** like "strings are the pixels of the universe", sure, but you didn't, you basically said a unit of distance is what makes up our universe. Cool
#14 to #9 - bouncingbananas
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
I'm reading about this in Susskind's Black Hole War.
Pretty intense stuff
#56 to #9 - anon id: 2fa08586
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
It's 6.262...x 10^-34



I'll be off now
#90 to #9 - anon id: d7452eb3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Its actually 6,63*10^-34

>The tiniest distance measurable (if you try to measure 1/10th of it, you will end up measuring 10 times its length, it is truly the smallest possible).

And this is just ********, sure you could mesure smallest things
User avatar #103 to #90 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/24/2013) [-]
Could be mistaken. I was told the unit was reflexive.
User avatar #98 to #9 - casinoer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Why can't we measure anything smaller.
User avatar #102 to #98 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/24/2013) [-]
It's the smallest unit. The same way the pixel is the smallest unit of resolution on a computer screen. It simply is the limit, it seems.
User avatar #66 to #9 - systemattic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
for now at least
User avatar #11 to #9 - rzrback
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
'if you try to measure 1/10th of it, you will end up measuring 10 times its length'

...

...

...What?
User avatar #30 to #11 - Logicaltightrope
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
It's wierd, like so much of tiny stuff physics. It's a reflexive measurement, so 1/10th = 10 times. I don't understand why.
#17 - zarkaronx
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
So people who have bad sight wear glasses to improve it to HD quality
So people who have bad sight wear glasses to improve it to HD quality
#21 - EventHorizon
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Here's a mental titty twister for you: What is the smallest unit of time? Time is a dimension, just like our three spatial ones. We believe that the string is the smallest unit in the 1st-3rd dimension, as you cannot get any smaller. But what about time? For example, when you heat up your oven, the temperature doesn't just smoothly flow from one temperature to the next. The heating elements actually exchange packets of energy in the form of heat known as Quanta (this discovery by Max Planck solved one of thermodynamics biggest problems of theoretical infinite heating). So if you were to look at a 1,000,000,000x zoomed in view of the heating graph of an oven, the temperature would be increasing in discrete steps, like a terraced hillside. So the question is, if we know that there is a size limit to every other type of energy and mass, then what is the smallest single unit of discrete time?
Here's a mental titty twister for you: What is the smallest unit of time? Time is a dimension, just like our three spatial ones. We believe that the string is the smallest unit in the 1st-3rd dimension, as you cannot get any smaller. But what about time? For example, when you heat up your oven, the temperature doesn't just smoothly flow from one temperature to the next. The heating elements actually exchange packets of energy in the form of heat known as Quanta (this discovery by Max Planck solved one of thermodynamics biggest problems of theoretical infinite heating). So if you were to look at a 1,000,000,000x zoomed in view of the heating graph of an oven, the temperature would be increasing in discrete steps, like a terraced hillside. So the question is, if we know that there is a size limit to every other type of energy and mass, then what is the smallest single unit of discrete time?
User avatar #22 to #21 - EventHorizon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
I actually gave you a hint up there for those actually interested.
User avatar #38 to #22 - bthebigoldb **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Hmm... is it a planck time? (This question is stupid.)
User avatar #40 to #38 - EventHorizon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Most people don't know, and there's no such thing as a stupid question. Being an egotistical prick is pretty stupid though...
User avatar #42 to #40 - bthebigoldb **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Yeah, it's stupid if you know the answer. You're like the kid in class who asks questions when he already knows the answer. If you really wanted people to know then you should have just told them. Also just so you know scientists don't agree that the planck length or planck time are the smallest possible lengths. So you're wrong anyways. IF M-Theory is correct then yeah, but it has no experimental evidence.
User avatar #46 to #42 - EventHorizon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
One, I was asking for the benefit of everyone else. Of course I knew the answer, I wanted other people to think about it though. Two, I'm not "wrong anyways" because it has been neither proven nor disproven. You, on the other hand, are like the kid in class who lashes out at people for no good reason.
User avatar #80 to #21 - ofmiceandmen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
The smallest unit of time would be the time it takes light to travel 1 planck length.
User avatar #107 to #80 - EventHorizon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/24/2013) [-]
Bingo
User avatar #36 to #21 - newforomador
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
That is nearly impossible to find because time is completely relative to perspective. When closer to an object of large mass time goes slower (or faster, I forget which), and the same goes for different speeds. If you were to be traveling at the speed of light, time would come to nearly a stand-still (or the opposite, once again, I forget). However, even the other dimensions can be relative to perspective, since, at the speed of light, one of the three dimensions (width I believe) completely disappears. All of this is theoretical however, so this could all be false.
User avatar #93 to #36 - obese
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
There is no such thing as time. It is all an illusion. You create yourself and time itself is relative to what you perceive. The past doesn't exist, the present is dying and the future is life.
User avatar #97 to #93 - newforomador
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Once you start talking about things like that it can become really weird. I start thinking about things like how all of us could see different colors but call them the same name just because thats how we know it. Like, I see object A as red, when you see it as what I would call green. Or how time could be moving at a different speed for all of us but we would be used to time going at that speed so it wouldn't be abnormal, even if your time was moving at 1/10th the speed of my time. My god I love **** like this but it can be so confusing sometimes.
User avatar #99 to #97 - obese
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Beautifully said.
User avatar #89 to #36 - snaresinger
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Or perhaps that's not what he was asking, but it's what came to my mind
User avatar #88 to #36 - snaresinger
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
That's not what he's asking though. He's saying, why is our universe discrete? Why isn't it continuous? And since it seems to be discrete, what happens in between the gaps? Things don't actually move- they "teleport" in a huge number of quantum leaps. So what happens between quanta, and why? I personally think it's very likely that we're in a simulation.
#5 - anon id: d8980048
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
There is actually an complete existential theory that implies that the whole world is inside a super computer running us as an simulation using atoms content as computing object, a bit like OOP. I don't remember the name but it is indeed an interesting theory even though I do not think it is true.
#13 to #5 - flyslasher
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Our world is the advent of another society's advanced voxel engine? I bet it's limited to the XBox One...
User avatar #16 to #5 - vigorion
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Nice try. But the only reason you don't belive it is because you were programmed to. I am not convinced.
#31 to #5 - sprucie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Does the theory explain sub-atomic particles like electrons?
User avatar #6 to #5 - acidboy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
I think it was on PBS idea channel!
#8 to #5 - anon id: 8f02fc13
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Basically the plot of Star Ocean 3
User avatar #33 to #5 - newforomador
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Here is a comment I made as a reply to this content. www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4647325/Fucking+Lag/ I don't feel like changing it at all so I'm just copying and pasting.

Something I simply want to say that this has brought to mind. Imagine, in a couple hundred or maybe thousand years, if humanity isn't extinct, it is most likely we would have a new piece of technology that is best explained as a quantum computer. This computer would be capable of processing every human thought ever in about 2 seconds. One thing that this computer would be able to do is create a simulated world, where you can program everything about it, down to the chemical makeup of a single cell. In this simulation, all the creatures would act as you programmed them, which, to them, would be how they are supposed to act. However, eventually there would be glitches. It would take a long time, but eventually the computer would no longer be able to handle all of the information and things would start to happen that the creatures capable of intelligent thought would find abnormal. Now put this thought into your head. It is slightly possible that we live in a quantum computer simulation. To us it would seem completely real, because to us, it is. But to whoever owns the quantum computer this is all just a simulation that he made. The example used in the book I read this in was this. Two friends are talking to each other about the possibility of them living in a simulation. To prove his point, one friend makes a simulation universe in which two simulated people are having the exact same argument that he and his friend are having. Good job on reading through this big block of text.
User avatar #79 to #33 - lizardnigger
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
So if we had a quantum computer simulation then it could be a quantum computer simulation in a quantum computer simulation.
i know where this is going
#74 to #33 - anon id: 6c9b3891
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
I agree with this except for the timeline. We will have quantum computers within the next few decades.
User avatar #82 to #74 - newforomador
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Thats what one of the replies to this was on the original comment.
#87 - snaresinger
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Wrong. Planck units are the pixels of real life. Maybe you've heard the term "quantum leap"- that actually refers to discontinuity in motion and matter. And there is indeed a theory that we ARE in a simulation, and Planck units ARE our pixels. Since we can create simulations and things like artificial intelligences, there's no reason we couldn't be in one, or in an Inception-style situation. This is hinted at by the fact that we have things like universal pixellation and universal limits to things like speed and temperature. So, yeah. Everything you know is likely wrong.

inb4 "you must be lots of fun at parties"
#76 - namesboo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
#24 - saturninepariah
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
User avatar #23 - InglushMayjur
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/23/2013) [-]
Why the **** don't I realize things like that when I'm high? No, instead, I ask titillating questions such as "What if Australia was us?"