4 ms·

Yeah, we definitely cannot simulate quantum effects or quantum computers /s

andrewla 6y ago
To take this at face value -- the entire point of the quantum supremacy claim is not that these quantum computers are computing interesting problems that we can't solve with classical computers, But instead what is being done is to construct a system where each of the components is simulateable on a classical computer -- we completely understand how they work. But when you put a number of the components together, the complexity of the classical program required to simulate the system becomes exponentially larger, rendering the classical simulating infeasible, while the complexity of the realized physical system increases only linearly. Since molecules are a quantum computer in themselves, this would imply (if it were possible) that to simulate quantum effects on a classical computer for even a small number of molecules would require a quantum computer exponential in the number of molecules. So to simulate one mole of air in its full complexity would require not just ~6e23 bits of computing power but instead 10^(10^23) bits of classical computing power. By contrast, simulating a very long series of classical coupled pendulums, though very complex, is a problem that increases linearly (or sublinearly) with the number of pendulums. Even though this system has nonlinearities that make it nearly impossible to compute in closed form, and exhibit chaotic behavior, simulation can be done feasibly.
- me_me_me 6y ago
  Sure I agree with all of that. But claiming that our reality became so much more complex that its not feasible to simulate it, therefore we are not living in a simulation is laughable. If we hypothetically assume we are a program, there is nothing to derive about the stimulants their reality or/and capabilities. They might be as well a 4D being running some tests. We might never know. maybe their physics is different then our who know. Furthermore you do not need to simulate ever molecule in out universe. I am sure there would be optimizations of stuff that doesn't need to be simulated as its not observed. Say up until recently a Pluto might needed less resources to simulate as it was never really seen, now it surface needs to be simulated etc. I am sure you get the point. I myself am not really concerned about the simulation hypothesis and I think its less likely. A simulation needs to be useful and if we were to run our simulation and start a possible chain then the cost of running the whole thing is felt the most at the actual real universe. If the cost is too high (ie time resolution is too slow for the liking of the owners) it will be terminated or rebooted. So if we are in simulation then not starting a simulation would be the wisest choice to prolong our existence. Either way its just an idle friday chitchat with no way to check or prove anything :)

To take this at face value -- the entire point of the quantum supremacy claim is not that these quantum computers are computing interesting problems that we can't solve with classical computers, But instead what is being done is to construct a system where each of the components is simulateable on a classical computer -- we completely understand how they work. But when you put a number of the components together, the complexity of the classical program required to simulate the system becomes exponentially larger, rendering the classical simulating infeasible, while the complexity of the realized physical system increases only linearly. Since molecules are a quantum computer in themselves, this would imply (if it were possible) that to simulate quantum effects on a classical computer for even a small number of molecules would require a quantum computer exponential in the number of molecules. So to simulate one mole of air in its full complexity would require not just ~6e23 bits of computing power but instead 10^(10^23) bits of classical computing power. By contrast, simulating a very long series of classical coupled pendulums, though very complex, is a problem that increases linearly (or sublinearly) with the number of pendulums. Even though this system has nonlinearities that make it nearly impossible to compute in closed form, and exhibit chaotic behavior, simulation can be done feasibly.

me_me_me 6y ago
Sure I agree with all of that. But claiming that our reality became so much more complex that its not feasible to simulate it, therefore we are not living in a simulation is laughable. If we hypothetically assume we are a program, there is nothing to derive about the stimulants their reality or/and capabilities. They might be as well a 4D being running some tests. We might never know. maybe their physics is different then our who know. Furthermore you do not need to simulate ever molecule in out universe. I am sure there would be optimizations of stuff that doesn't need to be simulated as its not observed. Say up until recently a Pluto might needed less resources to simulate as it was never really seen, now it surface needs to be simulated etc. I am sure you get the point. I myself am not really concerned about the simulation hypothesis and I think its less likely. A simulation needs to be useful and if we were to run our simulation and start a possible chain then the cost of running the whole thing is felt the most at the actual real universe. If the cost is too high (ie time resolution is too slow for the liking of the owners) it will be terminated or rebooted. So if we are in simulation then not starting a simulation would be the wisest choice to prolong our existence. Either way its just an idle friday chitchat with no way to check or prove anything :)