Limit Theory Forums

Well, what are the odds
If you ever see someone riding past on a kickscooter, that's most probably me.

http://www.phys.org/news/2014-12-quantu ... cated.html

Something interesting connected to that H-Drive discusdion earlier

How is that new? That's like, basic quantum mechanics, known for decades?
We saw that 2 years ago in QM1...

*shrug*

I just relay what i get feed as "new" by that page, havent got any proper education on QM yet.

Sure, no offense meant. The people who write those articles should know better, however. And I've seen the headline on a different site too...
To me, it looks as silly as "shocking new study shows that force equals mass times acceleration".

Edit: the most plausible scenario is that those scientists found an alternative way to think about something we already know, one news site completely misunderstood that and all the others rushed to copy that first article...

Cornflakes_91 wrote:*shrug*

I just relay what i get feed as "new" by that page, havent got any proper education on QM yet.

Don't worry cornflakes, I also got caught by the same clickbait article.
And I have had some basic QM education ...

I only realized that I was excited for something that was already known when I was halfway the article. :/

DigitalDuck wrote:It's a game.

There, I've just explained any and all differences between our universe and the LT one.

That would make sense if Josh is planning to use LT to make meta-commentary, like Hideo Kojima does in Metal Gear Solid. LT is a game in our universe, in our reality, outside of the game. (Unlike MGS, where videogame and reality merge and are interchangeable.)

Dinosawer wrote:And "the laws of physics are the same everywhere" is a physical law (by Einstein, to be exact).

Well, inside a black hole could be other laws of physics, even whole universes. (Our universe could be inside a black hole in another universe.) So actually it could be theoretically possible to generate conditions when the laws of physics seem to stop working and other laws, extrange laws, start applying. (And the fact that because we don't know how something works doesn't means that it breaks the laws of physics. Our "laws" are just theoretically valid until something proves otherwise.)

I'm not defending the idea of the Heisenberg drive. But I'm not against that suggestion beause I don't believe is possible. (I don't believe in believes. Lets say it could be possible or maybe no.) I don't like it, as I said earlier, for aesthetic reasons. (I want my ship to move.)

Etsu wrote:That would make sense if Josh is planning to use LT to make meta-commentary, like Hideo Kojima does in Metal Gear Solid. LT is a game in our universe, in our reality, outside of the game. (Unlike MGS, where videogame and reality merge and are interchangeable.)

Maybe that's the "official" view of it, but as far as I'm concerned games are games and I enjoy them because they're not reality.

DigitalDuck wrote:Maybe that's the "official" view of it, but as far as I'm concerned games are games and I enjoy them because they're not reality.

What's wrong with "reality"?

Etsu wrote:

DigitalDuck wrote:Maybe that's the "official" view of it, but as far as I'm concerned games are games and I enjoy them because they're not reality.

What's wrong with "reality"?

Nothing, besides the fact that in reality, I am not very frequently traveling from star to star, in a spaceship.

CSE wrote:Nothing, besides the fact that in reality, I am not very frequently traveling from star to star, in a spaceship.

That could be use as an argument in favor of fantasy and sci-fi videogames and to argues against fantasy and sci-fi videogames.

Ah, reality, great graphics but poor gameplay.

Etsu wrote:

CSE wrote:Nothing, besides the fact that in reality, I am not very frequently traveling from star to star, in a spaceship.

That could be use as an argument in favor of fantasy and sci-fi videogames and to argues against fantasy and sci-fi videogames.

Well, it's mostly an argument against a game where I am a chemical engineer drafting a new factory. Because I'm not gonna pay for that experience, I do get paid for it

A game should make you dream. Even if it means (God forbid) breaking some rules from the 101 quantum mechanics course... (Which by the way I should refresh. Can it be already 15 years ago?)
BUT a game which sells as a sort of simulation should have enough internal consistency to be predictable enough for understanding, planning and acting strategically.

My 2 cents...

I enjoy thinking about ways the physics could work in Limit Theory, but in my view we're kidding ourselves is it's actually critical in any way. The only way I could see it mattering is if it were somehow immersion-breaking.

This game is not a simulator: the simulation that is present is there to facilitate the fantasy Josh wants the game to be. And that game is: 'be whatever you want in an infinite science fiction universe'.

I agree with scy here, thats imo the only way in which one can see a sci-fi anything while having fun.