6 ms·

Are you saying that some things are just not simulable, given a sufficiently large and powerful computer, or that the universe is or might be infinite?

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
If the universe is real, not simulation. If you know the position and speed, everything, about every particle, then you should be able to extrapolate the future by calculating it. The problem is you need a computer the size of the universe to do that calculation. So even thought the map is the territory, equal scale, and you have the map. It is little worthless because the map ends up being reality. Edit: Little different than the idea that if this is simulation, you can do clipping and only render what we see. I'm saying the entire universe is 'real'.
- tines 2y ago
  > If you know the position and speed, everything, about every particle, then you should be able to extrapolate the future by calculating it. But isn't that the exact thing that quantum mechanics refutes? You cannot know the future just from the past; you can only know the probabilities of different futures.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    Yes. I referred to the randomness that would prevent this, "once that is solved". Guess I'm in the camp that eventually we'll find some model or discover something new, to discover what is behind the randomness, so it is no longer just random. But, yes, that is big IF. Until then, with current theories, we couldn't do these calculations. They'd just be approximations accounting for some randomness.
    - Filligree 2y ago
      Many-Worlds doesn’t contain or require any randomness. I guess for whatever reason you don’t consider that to be the correct discovery?
      - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        Because it doesn't remove the randomness from our universe. It punts it to other universes. That is great, but doesn't allow us to predict things in our individual universe. Or another way of saying it. We have 2 answers, they are determined. That is great, we know the 2 answers, one in each universe. Now the problem is we don't know what universe we are in. Now which universe we are in is random. We didn't move the ball towards doing something useful in our own universe.
        Filligree 2y ago
        The 'universes' are loose abstractions, not a defined part of the theory; there's no actual hard distinction between timelines, in much the same way as coastlines don't have a defined length. They all blend into each other if you look closely enough. That said, isn't the obvious answer 'all of them'?
  - worstspotgain 2y ago
    OK, but if you own the machine, you can just pick the outcome you want, or draw it from the distributions at random. We (observers inside the machine) cannot know the future of course.
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  If the universe is not infinite, and if individual particles and waves are calculable, it follows that one can postulate a larger universe capable of simulating it, or a large enough log book in this example. What I find interesting is looking at whether some observable things look like they might be performance optimizations, or even "magic seeds" (as in RNG seeds.) No proof of a simulation obviously, but maybe hints.
- jorvi 2y ago
  > The problem is you need a computer the size of the universe to do that calculation. I’m not sure were you get that idea from. The amount of calculations we can do, per say, 1 000 000 molecules dedicated to the calculation has absolutely skyrocketed, and will continue to skyrocket.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    "The amount of calculations we can do, per say, 1 000 000 molecules dedicated to the calculation " Lets say it takes 100 molecules in a circuit to calculate 1 particles state. Then you already would need a universe 100X the size to calculate our 1X size universe. I'm assuming all particles, not that this is somehow clipping and only rendering what we see. I'm not talking about the brain in box simulation, I'm talking about idea that entire universe is out there. What would it take to calculate every position of every particle.
    - jorvi 2y ago
      > Lets say it takes 100 molecules in a circuit to calculate 1 particles state. Then you already would need a universe 100X the size to calculate our 1X size universe. That’s not how it works though. You’d have a lot of fixed costs to build a computer that simulates exactly the behavior of one particle. But then simulating a secondary particle will have a much, much, much smaller marginal cost. Since you brought up clipping, games are actually a perfect example. You can see games as very crude simulations of our own reality, or slices of it. Take for example Red Dead Redemption 2. Run it on a PS5. Now compare the size of your PS5 to the mass of what was the old Wild West territory :) Plus there’s the whole quantum computing thing, where in a way you’re reaching into “alternate” realities for extra compute.
      - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        Yes. Just like a Minecraft World is like the size of 64,000 Earths, but it runs on my laptop. That is what I'm saying is not happening. I'm saying that in a particle collider, we measure particles, and those exist all the time, not just when we are looking at them. Like, I have DNA and bones, they exist all the time, not just a simulation showing a 'skin' so it doesn't have to render everything. Unless you are making a bigger point. That a computer that could be simulating every single particle, must exist outside this universe, and maybe mass and energy in this outside universe is so radically different we can't even grasp the scales of it. Just like someone inside a minecraft world with blocks, couldn't grasp the amount of energy in our world.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

If the universe is real, not simulation. If you know the position and speed, everything, about every particle, then you should be able to extrapolate the future by calculating it. The problem is you need a computer the size of the universe to do that calculation. So even thought the map is the territory, equal scale, and you have the map. It is little worthless because the map ends up being reality. Edit: Little different than the idea that if this is simulation, you can do clipping and only render what we see. I'm saying the entire universe is 'real'.

tines 2y ago
> If you know the position and speed, everything, about every particle, then you should be able to extrapolate the future by calculating it. But isn't that the exact thing that quantum mechanics refutes? You cannot know the future just from the past; you can only know the probabilities of different futures.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  Yes. I referred to the randomness that would prevent this, "once that is solved". Guess I'm in the camp that eventually we'll find some model or discover something new, to discover what is behind the randomness, so it is no longer just random. But, yes, that is big IF. Until then, with current theories, we couldn't do these calculations. They'd just be approximations accounting for some randomness.
  - Filligree 2y ago
    Many-Worlds doesn’t contain or require any randomness. I guess for whatever reason you don’t consider that to be the correct discovery?
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      Because it doesn't remove the randomness from our universe. It punts it to other universes. That is great, but doesn't allow us to predict things in our individual universe. Or another way of saying it. We have 2 answers, they are determined. That is great, we know the 2 answers, one in each universe. Now the problem is we don't know what universe we are in. Now which universe we are in is random. We didn't move the ball towards doing something useful in our own universe.
      - Filligree 2y ago
        The 'universes' are loose abstractions, not a defined part of the theory; there's no actual hard distinction between timelines, in much the same way as coastlines don't have a defined length. They all blend into each other if you look closely enough. That said, isn't the obvious answer 'all of them'?
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  OK, but if you own the machine, you can just pick the outcome you want, or draw it from the distributions at random. We (observers inside the machine) cannot know the future of course.
worstspotgain 2y ago
If the universe is not infinite, and if individual particles and waves are calculable, it follows that one can postulate a larger universe capable of simulating it, or a large enough log book in this example. What I find interesting is looking at whether some observable things look like they might be performance optimizations, or even "magic seeds" (as in RNG seeds.) No proof of a simulation obviously, but maybe hints.
jorvi 2y ago
> The problem is you need a computer the size of the universe to do that calculation. I’m not sure were you get that idea from. The amount of calculations we can do, per say, 1 000 000 molecules dedicated to the calculation has absolutely skyrocketed, and will continue to skyrocket.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  "The amount of calculations we can do, per say, 1 000 000 molecules dedicated to the calculation " Lets say it takes 100 molecules in a circuit to calculate 1 particles state. Then you already would need a universe 100X the size to calculate our 1X size universe. I'm assuming all particles, not that this is somehow clipping and only rendering what we see. I'm not talking about the brain in box simulation, I'm talking about idea that entire universe is out there. What would it take to calculate every position of every particle.
  - jorvi 2y ago
    > Lets say it takes 100 molecules in a circuit to calculate 1 particles state. Then you already would need a universe 100X the size to calculate our 1X size universe. That’s not how it works though. You’d have a lot of fixed costs to build a computer that simulates exactly the behavior of one particle. But then simulating a secondary particle will have a much, much, much smaller marginal cost. Since you brought up clipping, games are actually a perfect example. You can see games as very crude simulations of our own reality, or slices of it. Take for example Red Dead Redemption 2. Run it on a PS5. Now compare the size of your PS5 to the mass of what was the old Wild West territory :) Plus there’s the whole quantum computing thing, where in a way you’re reaching into “alternate” realities for extra compute.
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      Yes. Just like a Minecraft World is like the size of 64,000 Earths, but it runs on my laptop. That is what I'm saying is not happening. I'm saying that in a particle collider, we measure particles, and those exist all the time, not just when we are looking at them. Like, I have DNA and bones, they exist all the time, not just a simulation showing a 'skin' so it doesn't have to render everything. Unless you are making a bigger point. That a computer that could be simulating every single particle, must exist outside this universe, and maybe mass and energy in this outside universe is so radically different we can't even grasp the scales of it. Just like someone inside a minecraft world with blocks, couldn't grasp the amount of energy in our world.