| |||||||||||
2^64 bytes is enough for any human2^64 bytes is enough for any humanPosted Apr 15, 2004 17:59 UTC (Thu) by fjf33 (subscriber, #5768)In reply to: 2^64 bytes is enough for any human by zooko Parent article: The Grumpy Editor goes 64-bit Back when people were storing bits in induction coils nobody though that we would need 1 MB of ram and the future computeres were the size of planets. What makes you think that the rate of growth would slow any? It sounds like a couple of Mols of memory cells would do the trick pretty well in a very small space. It just will be different. It may also be that future MMOGs will be simulating things so close to reality that 2^64 would be reasonable.
(Log in to post comments)
2^64 bytes is enough for any human Posted Apr 16, 2004 21:31 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Back when people were storing bits in induction coils nobody thought...I'm always suspicious of these statements. Throughout history, people have been smart and imaginative. Though I was not talking to people about memory sizes in those days, I'm sure anyone who thought about it seriously realized we would need 1MB of memory in a computer. They quite possibly didn't think we'd ever be able to get it, but that's a whole different discussion. I guess we could put it another way: Nobody thought in the future we would need 20 bit addresses. (Because we'd never be able to get 1MB of memory behind a single CPU).
2^64 bytes is enough for any human Posted Apr 20, 2004 16:47 UTC (Tue) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] At some point, the "we'll always need more" belief has to be wrong. For example: do you think we'll need more than 2^128 memory? I don't. How many atoms of matter are there in the universe?
2^64 bytes is enough for any human Posted Apr 23, 2004 0:03 UTC (Fri) by chant (guest, #20286) [Link] First, imagine some sort of 3-d movie.Then, an interactive 3-d movie. Then consider a large-scale 3-d movie; i.e. modelling what happens to each of those atoms in the universe over time. Or, perhaps, modelling the little tiny components (and sub-components ad nauseum) of even one of those atoms. The possibilities are endless.... and perhaps, storing the 'feel' & phyiscs reacions of physical textures, the bonds between each of those atoms, etc. Or....on another order of magnitude altogether, the binaries for Windows U[niverse]E. :)
2^64 bytes is enough for any human Posted Apr 27, 2004 21:01 UTC (Tue) by slamb (guest, #1070) [Link] The point is not whether or not it would be useful to have an accurate model of the universe, but that it is impossible. Clearly you can't do better than (or even as well as) harnessing the largest set of good quantum numbers of every particle in the universe. (Your computer has to be in the universe!) So by examining the number of particles in the universe, you can come up with a number that is larger than the maximum possible storage space of a computer. Take the base-2 log and you've got an inexhaustible address space.I've seen discussions of this number before, but I don't remember the result. But I seem to recall it being less than 2^128; thus, a 128-bit address space is good enough for anyone. Really. There are other arguments based on thermodynamics limiting the complexity of a computer. Google for discussions of thermodynamics and reversible vs. irreversible computers and you'll see what I mean.
|
|||||||||||