I just got this weird idea. It's probably impossible, but anyway here goes.
Is it possible to predict the future by building an incredibly powerful computer that can simulate every single sub-atomic particle and quantum mechanic in the universe? If the simulation could run faster than reality, then you could start the simulator with a seed consisting of the state of the universe at the beginning of the big bang, and then run the simulation until it catches up with reality. From that point onwards, the simulation would simulate itself also going a little bit faster than its reality, and then you could inspect the state of any sub-simulation to find out what the universe would look like at any point in the future.
This is probably impossible due to some quantum bullshit but it's an interesting idea.
Assuming you don't get throttled by your parent universe, and assuming we aren't sandboxed (e.g. can create matter), you still couldn't. You'd need the source code, and reverse engineering wouldn't help, since you can't imagine the rules of the parent universe. Maybe they're using external variables for the simulation, and not a fixed seed, in which case you're fucked. Maybe they updated the simulation code, multiple times.
Out of all the universe simulation questions you could ask, this was the one ? If you could simulate a universe, why predict our current one's future ? Just make a more interesting one and hop in.
And even ignoring the fact you can't reverse engineer our current universe, you can't "just simulate faster". If you build a simulator, it has to obey our current universe's rules, which means you can't simulate faster than time itself.
>>2314 >Is it possible to predict the future by building an incredibly powerful computer that can simulate every single sub-atomic particle and quantum mechanic in the universe?
>>2314 what do you think the present moment is? how small is the smallest unit of time that could be defined as the 'present'? or is time infinitely divisible? can you prove that it isn't? this is leaving out the exponentially increasing rate of energy required to predict each subsequent moment, if in fact there exists a set of non-volatile, indivisible units of time. no, the question you are posing is far deeper than you realize, and there's no reason to assume the universe isn't already doing something similar to what you are asking.
>>2314 You're a retard because you can't store the state of the universe losslessly without the storage medium being the size of the universe. E.g. you can't measure the position of something to infinite precision without requiring infinite storage space and processing power.
>>2315 >Just make a more interesting one and hop in.
How will I know that my consciousness will maintain state while being transferred between universes?
>>2393 >Would the simulation have to include a simulation of the simulation?
I guess so, that's what OP said would allow him to predict unlimited amounts of time into the future the instant the simulation reached the time in which the simulation itself was created.
>>2394 >C
>pointer
Everybody knows that the universe is written in Rust :^).
A simular idea shows up in the Heavy object series by Kazuma kamatchi, though not quite as soficticated as what you describe its reffered to as a "Prediction seatch engine" I cant remember the particular volumes it shows up however.
Well we can already predict the future in some cases. For example the orbits of planets and whatnot. We also have some basic understanding on the fate of the universe as a whole. The main thing we have trouble with is human behaviour. As our understanding of the universe increases I guess it would be possible to simulate a subset of the universe. However as one anon said, the amount of computing power would be so great that you'd probably end up using more matter for the simulation than the actual thing you are simulating. So you couldn't simulate our universe, but you could probably simulate a smaller or less complex one.
Any action from someone with this knowledge of the future would change the future unless you somehow also simulated the simulator. So if you wanted the future simulation to be correct, you would need to avoid interfering with the universe you are simulating.
Also making a simulation of the universe would require a complete understanding of how the universe works. So basically by the time you get to this point, you would be so powerful and intelligent that you'd have little to gain from running the simulation anyway.
>>2314 Quantum entanglement occurs outside of perceived time, because it doesn't obey relativistic laws, so you'd never be able to "go forward" without breaking the entanglement.
Quantum entanglement depends upon absolute time existing. What you're asking is mutually exclusive from reality.
>>2521 The human brain depends upon quantum electrical effects, and when awake, your brain is more like a complex magnetic field than anything else, based on what I've read. It makes it inherently unpredictable.
In regards to simulating a universe, you could easily simulate a universe as long as it's procedurally generated. You just wouldn't be able to predict outcomes outside of probabilities unless rules were hardcoded in from the beginning.
I just got this weird idea. It's probably impossible, but anyway here goes.
Is it possible to predict the future by building an incredibly powerful computer that can simulate every single sub-atomic particle and quantum mechanic in the universe? If the simulation could run faster than reality, then you could start the simulator with a seed consisting of the state of the universe at the beginning of the big bang, and then run the simulation until it catches up with reality. From that point onwards, the simulation would simulate itself also going a little bit faster than its reality, and then you could inspect the state of any sub-simulation to find out what the universe would look like at any point in the future.
This is probably impossible due to some quantum bullshit but it's an interesting idea.