Well, ”computer” in the mathematical sense is well defined of what it can and cannot do. The limit is the halting problem or equivalent problems.
The question is: is there some equivalent to the halting problem in the real universe? If that’s the case, then there’s no algorithm you can use to describe the entire universe.
My experience is the opposite.
Whenever I have a problem with Linux, there’s often a solution available after some Googling. Often it’s just changing something in a configuration file. Not great, but at least doable.
Whenever I have a problem with Windows, there’s often that one thread where someone details the exact same problem, and there’s some ”official Microsoft tech support” whose only contribution is to ask if they have tried to reboot the computer and then radio silence.
It’s mostly convenience. They know it works, so they keep using it.
Luckily Microsoft is making it inconvenient to continue using Windows.
Whenever I play Civ I try to go for a peaceful victory. Then someone picks a fight with me and that escalates with me going for the world domination victory.
EndeavourOS has that kind of menu during the install process. A few screenshots and a brief explanation of each option.
I thought it was nice. It’s something I want to see more with other distros. The DE is what most people will notice about the OS either way.
The portion of people playing on SteamOS is steadily decreasing, which means new Linux users are on Steam Deck to a lesser extent.
Is that really needed?
I think what could really drive adoption is if computers with Linux pre-installed was more easily accessible. Just boot the computer, choose which DE you want to install and then it’s done. It doesn’t need to be SteamOS. Just any good distro will do.
I think it will continue to rise. People are updating their rigs all the time. Whenever they update their rig they’ll have to ask themselves whether they want to continue with Windows on their new rig, or try with something new.
Most will stay on Windows of course, but some don’t. And those who switch to Linux are likely not returning to Windows (for gaming at least).
Then it’s not an approximation - it’s the reality. The question is whether all things the universe does can also a computer do in theory. If one thing about the universe is uncomputable, then the entire universe is uncomputable.
The paper suggests this thing is quantum gravity. I have my doubts about it, but I’m in no position to refute the paper.
I have no idea either. I feel like I have some surface understanding of what they want to achieve, but I’m completely lost as soon it gets any deeper than that.
When it comes to theory of computability, you don’t need to account for optimization techniques. No need to consider the practicality of getting an answer from the algorithm, like how long it takes or how much memory it requires. Either you can get an answer in finite amount of time, or you can not.
But I agree it’s sus when it comes to making such strong statements about the compatibility of the reality. I don’t trust this paper makes all the right assumptions.
The paper makes the argument that the universe we live in is mathematically uncomputable. No algorithm can describe it. There’s no mathematical formula we can use to compute the universe as it is.
If this is the case, then we don’t live inside a computer. Something more than pure computation is required.
Now their argument is that quantum gravity is the thing that makes the universe uncomputable. I’m not sure how valid this part of their argument is.
My bad. Of course you’re right.
I’ve dreamt that levitation is possible. Therefore, levitation is possible in reality. QED
We simulate weather systems all the time, even though the systems are fundamentally chaotic and it’s impossible to forecast accurately.
Weather simulations are approximations. It’s not an exact replication of the universe.
Counterexample: your dreams are a form of simulation (probably). So I can literally disprove this take in my sleep
Dreams are an approximation of reality at best. It’s not a perfect simulation.
They argue that the universe isn’t mathematically computable, and therefore not possible to simulate. It’s not about physical computers.
We know there’s a class of ”uncomputable problems” for which there’s no algorithm (most well known is halting problem). If the universe rely on any of these uncomputable problems, then no computer - no matter how advanced it is - can simulate the universe. Something else other than pure computation is needed.
However, their argument rely on that ”quantum gravity” is what makes the universe uncomputable. I’m not sure how valid this statement is.
Rushed games suck. Movie tie in games tended to be made with tight deadline and budgeting. On top of that, the developers were supposed to make a game of a movie that don’t exist yet.
Thankfully, the trend of making movie tie in games stopped.
Relax, it’s just a joke almost as old as Linux itself.
Anyone dependent on Adobe suite.
In that case it must also have different laws of mathematics for it to work.