/b/ - Random

V3 HIDDEN SERVICE
Now accepting mod applications. Email 37564N@memeware.net to apply.
EXPLANATION FOR ACCIDENTAL DATABASE DAMAGE
[Make a Post]
[X]





Simulating the universe Anonymous No.2314 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>2317 >>2318 >>2320 >>2393 >>2867 >>2876
File: 6ed349c9d0551496a6938530069f31f323e5e216373f4b761e0e9e9bdbd9adaa.jpg (dl) (69.01 KiB)

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.

Anonymous No.2315 [D] >>2321

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.

Anonymous No.2316 [D]

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.

Anonymous No.2317 [D] >>2876

>>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?

https://invidio.us/watch?v=GFxPMMkhHuA

Short answer: no, because you'd need infinite accuracy, meaning the Computer would have to be [as big as] the Universe itself.


Anonymous No.2318 [D]

>>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.

Anonymous No.2320 [D]

>>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.

Anonymous No.2321 [D] >>2333

>>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?

Anonymous No.2333 [D][U][F] >>2334
File: fd888f67f16ed233c15ba755a88105ae976905d221e823505d117db83e5a95c0.png (dl) (152.64 KiB)

>>2321
But every time you have a new thought the state of your consciousness changes irreversibly, motherfucker.


Anonymous No.2334 [D]

>>2333
but it's a stream, faggot. if you woke up and your memories were in an inconsistent state you wouldn't like it would you?

Anonymous No.2393 [D] >>2394 >>2395

>>2314
Would the simulation have to include a simulation of the simulation? The simulation would be a part of the universe if you made it, you know.

Anonymous No.2394 [D] >>2395

>>2393
Nah, that can be solved with a pointer if you're using C.


Anonymous No.2395 [D]

>>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 :^).

Anonymous No.2413 [D] >>2432 >>2433

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.

Anonymous No.2521 [D] >>2868

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.

Anonymous No.2863 [D]

There is actually something called "digital physics" that's related to the simulation of the universe, look into that if you're interested.

Anonymous No.2867 [D]

>>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.

Anonymous No.2868 [D] >>2999

>>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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NBG-sKFaB0
FPS that is only 96kb in size

Anonymous No.2876 [D][U][F]
File: 83baf4dfacc5e44ada6f6b325ce637d67a13b399458df5ce4ef8e901a91b5485.jpg (dl) (12.19 KiB)

>>2314
>>2317
In Hitchhikers Guide To Galaxy they had such a computer. Answer to all the questions was "8"

Anonymous No.2999 [D] >>3029

>>2868
>96kb
That's pretty impressive.
Wonder if it would be possible to get a snake game down to just 32 bytes.

Anonymous No.3029 [D]

>>2999
I'm sure there's some Ph.D in Information Theory who could tell you down to the bit.

Anonymous No.3235 [D]

Yes I remember that. Classic.