I wonder if the library page is legit. I mean the concept sounds legit but what tells us that the site just doesn't make shit up and saves it under a random place so people could find it again.
[QUOTE=Mitsuma;48750847]I wonder if the library page is legit. I mean the concept sounds legit but what tells us that the site just doesn't make shit up and saves it under a random place so people could find it again.[/QUOTE]
I think you should read up on it or watch that part of the video again, you're really not getting it.
On another note:
[B]Hexagon:[/B] 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
[B]Wall:[/B] 3
[B]Shelf:[/B] 3
[B]Volume:[/B] 28 tuldjk
[B]Page:[/B] 144
[QUOTE=paul simon;48750740]There's a flaw in that logic.
To find the correctly colored picture, you'd have to know what colors it's supposed to have, in which case you could just make the software color it with the knowledge it already has.[/QUOTE]
You're probably right about colorization, but it still might be possible (though incredibly inefficient) to find a higher quality version of a photo using that method. Something like Google's reverse image search algorithm could automatically sift through the randomly generated photographs and return a list of possible results.
But of course, there is probably a far more efficient way to improve the quality of a photo.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;48750855]You're probably right about colorization, but it still might be possible (though incredibly inefficient) to find a higher quality version of a photo using that method. Something like Google's reverse image search algorithm could automatically sift through the randomly generated photographs and return a list of possible results.[/QUOTE]
Again, to do that you (or the algorithm) have to know what exactly you're looking for, and in that case you can just as easily synthesize the missing parts and get the exact same results.
[QUOTE=Katska;48750841]Of course, but it's late and I'm alone and I'm trying not to get super creeped out right now. Thinking about all the [URL="https://libraryofbabel.info/bookmark.cgi?danwasboobies"]hilarious[/URL] things it holds keeps my mind off all the morbid things it holds.[/QUOTE]
I haven't thought about [sp]Dan was boobies[/sp] in quite some time, thanks for that :v:
[QUOTE=paul simon;48750851]I think you should read up on it or watch that part of the video again, you're really not getting it.[/QUOTE]
Oh I sure understand it but just from a practical standpoint, making a page that takes the users input, fills the rest of the 3200 characters with random characters and saving it under a unique pointer seems to be an easier method.
I don't actually think the page is fake, just a thought I had.
[QUOTE=paul simon;48750862]Again, to do that you (or the algorithm) have to know what exactly you're looking for, and in that case you can just as easily synthesize the missing parts and get the exact same results.[/QUOTE]
No, you misunderstand. Google's reverse image search doesn't return exactly the same image; it returns similar images. E.g. you can pump in a jpeg of a certain size and compression level, and it will fairly reliably return the same image hosted on different places on the net in various sizes and compression levels as a result.
The idea would be to take an image of a certain quality, and find all "similar" images as determined by the above tech. The human would then sort through the narrowed-down list and hopefully find a higher quality version of the original image.
[QUOTE=Mitsuma;48750847]I wonder if the library page is legit. I mean the concept sounds legit but what tells us that the site just doesn't make shit up and saves it under a random place so people could find it again.[/QUOTE]
2+2 makes 4 every time, that's the point of an algorithm. The site doesn't use a random word generator, and saving every made up bit of text would take an unreasonable amount of space.
And why would it be made up? The concept is pretty simple, it's just creating a 3200 character list of 28 different unicode letters from a code, or a seed. The result of that seed is the same every time. So every variation would have it's own seed and, through the algorithm, each seed could be reformed as the full message.
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;48750825]Think of how the library probably also has the exact date, time, and cause of all our deaths[/QUOTE]
It has but it also says you died on the moon, on the street and every other word possible. Probably billions ways how, when and where you died.
It is not a way to tell your future.
[QUOTE=Mitsuma;48750874]Oh I sure understand it but just from a practical standpoint, making a page that takes the users input, fills the rest of the 3200 characters with random characters and saving it under a unique pointer seems to be an easier method.
I don't actually think the page is fake, just a thought I had.[/QUOTE]
That's not an easier method though.
Seed-based random generation isn't rocket science, and you don't have to deal with storage of generated pages.
[editline]24th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;48750880]No, you misunderstand. Google's reverse image search doesn't return exactly the same image; it returns similar images. E.g. you can pump in a jpeg of a certain size and compression level, and it will fairly reliably return the same image hosted on different places on the net in various sizes and compression levels as a result.
The idea would be to take an image of a certain quality, and find all "similar" images as determined by the above tech. The human would then sort through the narrowed-down list and hopefully find a higher quality version of the original image.[/QUOTE]
Problem is that you're creating detail that wasn't originally there, so you'll never know whether or not it actually is of higher quality or if it has just invented detail where there was none.
And at that point, since you know what you want the higher quality image to look like, you may as well fill in the pixels yourself as that would take less time.
[QUOTE=Killer monkey;48749456]And again I'm left staring at the wall trying to keep my self together from everything Micheal just dropped on me.[/QUOTE]
[t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22953483/babelfp.PNG[/t]
Does this make you feel any better?
So if we made a powerful enough AI it could search the library and find all accurate information and test it to know everything?
the sad thing about the library is that when you hit [URL="https://libraryofbabel.info/random.cgi"]random[/URL], you're most likely going to get scatter
but there are gems you can find
you could find exactly a page from a book you have just left of you. letter for letter.
[QUOTE=J!NX;48750985]the sad thing about the library is that when you hit random, you're most likely going to get scatter
but there are gems you can find theoretically[/QUOTE]
Anyone got the math for the chances of finding a legitimate, 5 or so letter word on a random page? Or the chance of finding a readable, 10 word sentence.
[QUOTE=sirdownloadsalot;48750989]Anyone got the math for the chances of finding a legitimate, 5 or so letter word on a random page? Or the chance of finding a readable, 10 word sentence.[/QUOTE]
or even just the word "fubar"
[editline]24th September 2015[/editline]
also, remember to use the "Anglishize" button
[QUOTE=J!NX;48750993]or even just the word "fubar"[/QUOTE]
Would that be 1 in 17210368 to get fubar?
If it generates a word from the 25 letters and a (, . or a space), then each correct letter is one in 28, a five letter word is 28^5
I might be wrong, I'm not great at math.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/4GTkFTk.png[/t]
its a sign
[QUOTE=paul simon;48750900]That's not an easier method though.
Seed-based random generation isn't rocket science, and you don't have to deal with storage of generated pages.
[editline]24th September 2015[/editline]
Problem is that you're creating detail that wasn't originally there, so you'll never know whether or not it actually is of higher quality or if it has just invented detail where there was none.
And at that point, since you know what you want the higher quality image to look like, you may as well fill in the pixels yourself as that would take less time.[/QUOTE]
Hey man I'm not arguing what's practical, just what's possible :v:
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;48751077]Hey man I'm not arguing what's practical, just what's possible :v:[/QUOTE]
It's possible, but it's just the least efficient way possible for rendering new detail :v:
Is it bad if you get a bit teary-eyed from the realisations you get from watching a video like this?
I find that the scariest thing about the Library of Babel is the fact that you can search anything up to 3200 characters, yet looking around randomly in the books for hours you would not find a single legible sentence. That to me is just scary.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48749537]... [B]It could also theoretically include pictures of future that might or might not exist[/B] ...[/QUOTE]
Imagine flipping through randomly generated images on this site, mostly just finding static and such, but every now and then seeing pictures like:
- Yourself online, browsing the site. The image looks like it has been taken with a webcam standing above your monitor. But you don't have a webcam...
- The wedding photo of your parents.
- The wedding photo of you and your future partner, who you will marry in 6 years.
- Your firstborn child, 14 years before they are born.
- The exact coordinates to a treasure buried several hundred years ago.
- The cure to a deadly disease.
- News article of a disaster that will happen tomorrow.
It'd be pretty spooky to find any of those pics, but yeah, theoretically they would all exist on the site.
[QUOTE=Bordellimies;48751199]Imagine flipping through randomly generated images on this site, mostly just finding static and such, but every now and then seeing pictures like:
- Yourself online, browsing the site. The image looks like it has been taken with a webcam standing above your monitor. But you don't have a webcam...
- The wedding photo of your parents.
- The wedding photo of you and your future partner, who you will marry in 6 years.
- Your firstborn child, 14 years before they are born.
- The exact coordinates to a treasure buried several hundred years ago.
- The cure to a deadly disease.
- News article of a disaster that will happen tomorrow.
It'd be pretty spooky to find any of those pics, but yeah, theoretically they would all exist on the site.[/QUOTE]
It's an interesting idea but it's like the infinite monkeys with typewriters thing, it's so statistically improbable to find something that looks like an actual picture it's almost pointless, along with the fact that unlike the tower of babel website you can't really enter in something and get a straight result. Someone could spend their entire life flipping through random images and not find anything that doesn't look like virtual vomit.
[QUOTE=Bordellimies;48751199]Imagine flipping through randomly generated images on this site, mostly just finding static and such, but every now and then seeing pictures like:
- Yourself online, browsing the site. The image looks like it has been taken with a webcam standing above your monitor. But you don't have a webcam...
- The wedding photo of your parents.
- The wedding photo of you and your future partner, who you will marry in 6 years.
- Your firstborn child, 14 years before they are born.
- The exact coordinates to a treasure buried several hundred years ago.
- The cure to a deadly disease.
- News article of a disaster that will happen tomorrow.
It'd be pretty spooky to find any of those pics, but yeah, theoretically they would all exist on the site.[/QUOTE]
But in order to find those exact pictures, it would take more time then there exists before the heat death of the universe.
All meaning images would be lost against nonsensical static, images that don't mean anything, and jumbled segments of the proper images. You could find your future wedding photo, but also that same image cut up and reassembled in an almost unlimited number of ways, bound by only the resolution and pixel density.
You could search that site every day, from 6 till 12 till the day you die, and you still might never see a discernable, complete image. And even if you did, there would be no way of knowing if what it contained was really your future, or just an absraction
But all those images, theoretically, exist somewhere in that site, amongst more than a quadrillion other images.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;48751269]It's an interesting idea but it's like the infinite monkeys with typewriters thing, it's so statistically improbable to find something that looks like an actual picture it's almost pointless, along with the fact that unlike the tower of babel website you can't really enter in something and get a straight result. Someone could spend their entire life flipping through random images and not find anything that doesn't look like virtual vomit.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, so imagine just how creepy it would be if you would actually get a picture that would be familiar to your life that is in recognizable quality.
[QUOTE=sirdownloadsalot;48751277]But in order to find those exact pictures, it would take more time then there exists before the heat death of the universe.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's random so you might find it within the next minute.
It's just very unlikely.
Consider a computer that generates a completely random image that's 620x740 every time. Every pixel is given a random colour. Theoretically, this computer could show literally everything possible that could be displayed on its monitor.
Every image would have 458800 pixels all together. Every pixel would be 24 bits in true colour, capable of producing 16,777,216 colour variations with 256 different shades of red, 256 shades of green and 256 shades of blue mixed together.
(458800x16,777,216 )^2 = [B]59,249,762,021,652,708,720,640,000[/B] individual images to see.
If you looked at every one of those images for half a second each, it would take 29,788,140,994.33 years to see every image.
(I'm not a great math student, so tell me if if I fucked up somewhere along here)
Somebody should make a web version of that anyways. Not sure if it is possible to make as a web version like the Library but with enough people and luck there could be something that reassembles anything besides noise in an image. :v:
If you want to hear some more cool stuff about messages for the future, I can heartily recommend this episode of 99% Invisible about the US Government's attempts to find a way to create warnings about nuclear waste dumps for people 10,000 years from now, which range from comics to huge scale genetic and social manipulation.
[url]http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/ten-thousand-years/[/url]
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;48750825]Think of how the library probably also has the exact date, time, and cause of all our deaths[/QUOTE]
Along with several million wrong guesses. In theory it also has entries in languages that don't exist yet.
The thing about that library though is that every single thing in it is random guesses. It offers just about every possible sequence you can make with our alphabet and simple punctuation, but there is no way of knowing if any entry is accurate without first knowing both the statement and its accuracy. Also even though he was able to find his actual string of dialogue in there, the entry it was in did not actually show the entry numbers it was in, those were just referred to as "this".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
