The Cyclops

[FoxEye]

I know, I didn't say that you said we could, I'm pointing out that it is kinda moot regardless - supposing it were possible in theory, a system required to actually calculate the position of everything in the universe and how that will change in future likely couldn't exist within the same universe, even a deterministic system could be incredibly hard to predict.

I didn't make that claim though. Though currently there isn't any deterministic explanation for say radioactive decay for example - why one atom of uranium and not another? Or the behaviour of various particles at a quantum level.

I'm not actually saying that we will ever be able for us or any other species to predict anything.

Just that it may theoretically be possible, which would mean that there is only one outcome for all events.

In fact the ability to predict is a consequence of there being only one outcome, not the other way around.

 

[R.P.L]

I know, I didn't say that you said we could, I'm pointing out that it is kinda moot regardless - supposing it were possible in theory, a system required to actually calculate the position of everything in the universe and how that will change in future likely couldn't exist within the same universe, even a deterministic system could be incredibly hard to predict.



I didn't make that claim though. Though currently there isn't any deterministic explanation for say radioactive decay for example - why one atom of uranium and not another? Or the behaviour of various particles at a quantum level.

It might be moot to you, but to a lot of people it's one of the most important questions about our existence, from a philoshopical standpoint at least but also probably a scientific one as well. And yes, I know you didn't explicitly make the claim but the implication that it was as good as dead was very clear.

 

[dowie]

It might be moot to you, but to a lot of people it's one of the most important questions about our existence, from a philoshopical standpoint at least but also probably a scientific one as well. And yes, I know you didn't explicitly make the claim but the implication that it was as good as dead was very clear.

Nope, you're arguing against things you're projecting/assuming yourself. I didn't say determinism was as good as dead nor did I say the question of it was moot, I referred to the notion of being able to see the future as being moot, not the question of whether or not it was possible in theory.

 

[Angilion]

You say that as if the concept has been roundly accepted as false, which isn't the case. Also, the question of being able to accurately predict the future is separate in a way, because even if we knew that the universe was deterministic you'd still need a big old computer to simulate it accurately.

Maybe what we think of as the universe is that simulation. How would we know, from within it?

 

[Participant]

As the myth says, they have the ability to see their own death.

Given a choice, would you prefer to know when you are going to die? Or not?

I'd like to know, because I could then maximise the fun and commit mayhem just beforehand.

 

[R.P.L]

Maybe what we think of as the universe is that simulation. How would we know, from within it?

It could well be

Nope, you're arguing against things you're projecting/assuming yourself. I didn't say determinism was as good as dead nor did I say the question of it was moot, I referred to the notion of being able to see the future as being moot, not the question of whether or not it was possible in theory.

Well it seemed to be heavily implied, but I guess I misunderstood. Re the last point, possible in theory means possible in the future with more advanced tech... maybe.

 

[dowie]

Well it seemed to be heavily implied, but I guess I misunderstood. Re the last point, possible in theory means possible in the future with more advanced tech... maybe.

Not necessarily, that's kind of a handwaving argument, for example, possible in theory IF you were some observer outside of our universe with some giant supercomputer. That it might be possible in theory as in the universe is deterministic and everything that will happen could, in theory, be known it doesn't necessarily follow that it is possible to know from within the universe.

The point again is that even if it a deterministic system it can be near impossible to predict:

That's quite an old school idea based on Newtonian mechanics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe

It's kinda moot, even in a deterministic system things can be highly sensitive so you can't feasibly predict the future - see the butterfly effect, chaos theory etc...

 

[R.P.L]

Not necessarily, that's kind of a handwaving argument, for example, possible in theory IF you were some observer outside of our universe with some giant supercomputer. That it might be possible in theory as in the universe is deterministic and everything that will happen could, in theory, be known it doesn't necessarily follow that it is possible to know from within the universe.

The point again is that even if it a deterministic system it can be near impossible to predict:

I can assure you my hands are quite calm and still.

Why would it be impossible from within the same universe?

I'm not sure what your point about chaos theory is either. All it really does is point out that in a complex (but deterministic) system, it's difficult (but not impossible) to predict outcomes. No one's arguing against that.

 

[dowie]

Why would it be impossible from within the same universe?

If the system exists within the same universe it is part of what it is supposed to be predicting ergo it needs to accurately simulate/predict itself - its own behaviour too in addition to that of the universe around it.

I'm not sure what your point about chaos theory is either. All it really does is point out that in a complex (but deterministic) system, it's difficult (but not impossible) to predict outcomes. No one's arguing against that.

Because it makes the above rather unlikely to be possible. You can't just ignore the advanced supercomputer that is simulating itself by arguing that you could just simulate everything else aside from the magical advanced tech itself... even in a deterministic system, you've got that sensitivity problem where any tiny change in conditions can have dramatic effects.

Not to mention how is something within the current universe able to observe the entire universe in one go - we're talking solar systems and galaxies light-years apart, let alone being able to observe all the particles within them.

 

[R.P.L]

If the system exists within the same universe it is part of what it is supposed to be predicting ergo it needs to accurately simulate/predict itself - its own behaviour too in addition to that of the universe around it.



Because it makes the above rather unlikely to be possible. You can't just ignore the advanced supercomputer that is simulating itself by arguing that you could just simulate everything else aside from the magical advanced tech itself... even in a deterministic system, you've got that sensitivity problem where any tiny change in conditions can have dramatic effects.

Not really. Let's assume:

• You can accurately model the starting point.
• You can predict the behaviour of particles at the quantum level, and therefore write an algorithm to simulate it.
• Your code is bug free.
• You have a computer powerful enough to run the simulation.

What's going to go wrong? Correctly coded software doesn't do random stuff in isolation. Sure, software crashes, but that's not because of a butterfly flapping its wings in Texas.

 

[dowie]

What's going to go wrong? Correctly coded software doesn't do random stuff in isolation. Sure, software crashes, but that's not because of a butterfly flapping its wings in Texas.

But it isn't about anything going wrong, no one said anything about your computer program going wrong rather just not being feasible in the first place within the same universe assuming it actually is deterministic in the first place, which isn't certain at all.

 

[FoxEye]

The feasibility (or not) of a simulation is surely the least interesting part of the question of whether the future *can* be predicted or not.

Because with an entirely predictable universe there is surely no concept of free will and choice (etc).

Words like "achievement" or phrases like "doing your best" become entirely meaningless.

 

[dowie]

The feasibility (or not) of a simulation is surely the least interesting part of the question of whether the future *can* be predicted or not.

Because with an entirely predictable universe there is surely no concept of free will and choice (etc).

Words like "achievement" or phrases like "doing your best" become entirely meaningless.

Yup I agree, I was just replying to the other poster - that is more interesting. I don't think it is deterministic mind but am not completely dismissing the possibility.

 

[R.P.L]

But it isn't about anything going wrong, no one said anything about your computer program going wrong rather just not being feasible in the first place within the same universe assuming it actually is deterministic in the first place, which isn't certain at all.

I still don't understand why you keep bringing up the 'in the same universe' point. Working on the hypothesis that the universe is truly deterministic at the lowest level, 'all' (in quotations as I'm not implying it's trivially easy) that's needed is an accurate algorithm, an accurate model of the starting point and a system capable of running it. I just don't see how it existing in the same universe is a limiting factor. We can model lots of things that exist in this universe, but are limited by our current knowledge and computational power.

The feasibility (or not) of a simulation is surely the least interesting part of the question of whether the future *can* be predicted or not.

Because with an entirely predictable universe there is surely no concept of free will and choice (etc).

The philoshophical question is more interesting, I agree. But the implications of that in reality are also interesting.

Yup I agree, I was just replying to the other poster - that is more interesting. I don't think it is deterministic mind but am not completely dismissing the possibility.

Actually, it was you that brought up the point about whether it was possible to simulate. I was just responding to you:

supposing it were possible in theory, a system required to actually calculate the position of everything in the universe and how that will change in future likely couldn't exist within the same universe, even a deterministic system could be incredibly hard to predict.

Nope, you're arguing against things you're projecting/assuming yourself. I didn't say determinism was as good as dead nor did I say the question of it was moot, I referred to the notion of being able to see the future as being moot, not the question of whether or not it was possible in theory.

 

[FoxEye]

I still don't understand why you keep bringing up the 'in the same universe' point. Working on the hypothesis that the universe is truly deterministic at the lowest level, 'all' (in quotations as I'm not implying it's trivially easy) that's needed is an accurate algorithm, an accurate model of the starting point and a system capable of running it. I just don't see how it existing in the same universe is a limiting factor. We can model lots of things that exist in this universe, but are limited by our current knowledge and computational power.

I think there are a couple problems with a simulation inside the universe being simulated.

1) You would not be able to map the state of all matter/energy at a single point in time (that I can see).
2) Your simulation would by necessity be slower than real-time. You would be able to simulate but not predict the future.

Assuming (1) is overcome (by magic!), it might still be useful in that you could simulate places you can't physically access. But I can't see any way your simulation could run at anything more than a tiny fraction of real-time, hence it would be a simulation of events already having taken place.

 

[Angilion]

I still don't understand why you keep bringing up the 'in the same universe' point. Working on the hypothesis that the universe is truly deterministic at the lowest level, 'all' (in quotations as I'm not implying it's trivially easy) that's needed is an accurate algorithm, an accurate model of the starting point and a system capable of running it. I just don't see how it existing in the same universe is a limiting factor. We can model lots of things that exist in this universe, but are limited by our current knowledge and computational power. [..]

The idea absolutely requires that everything in the universe be simulated simultaneously. Absolutely everything with absolute precision.

If the hypothetical computer was in the universe, it would therefore be required to simulate itself because it would be part of the universe. And simulate itself simulating itself because that would also be part of the universe. And simulate itself simulating itself simulating itself. Etc, ad infinitum. An infinite simulation of simulations. Which would be impossible.

If you have to know absolutely everything in the universe (which is a requirement for this idea), you have to do it outside the universe because doing it inside the universe recursively and infinitely adds more things that need to be known.

 

[FoxEye]

The idea absolutely requires that everything in the universe be simulated simultaneously. Absolutely everything with absolute precision.

If the hypothetical computer was in the universe, it would therefore be required to simulate itself because it would be part of the universe. And simulate itself simulating itself because that would also be part of the universe. And simulate itself simulating itself simulating itself. Etc, ad infinitum. An infinite simulation of simulations. Which would be impossible.

If you have to know absolutely everything in the universe (which is a requirement for this idea), you have to do it outside the universe because doing it inside the universe recursively and infinitely adds more things that need to be known.

It would need to simulate itself, yes, but that's no different really to simulating things that are not itself. It is just matter and energy, as is everything else. Hence if you can simulate all matter and energy then you can simulate the particular matter and energy that is the simulating device.

It is pretty clear that we would need absolutely staggering computational power and frankly it's very, very nearly inconceivable that we'd ever have the processing power to pull it off. In fact I'd say it's a very safe bet that in terms of computation power alone (and the necessary mass of such a device) that it's just not feasible.

Or you'd have a device which simulates 0.00000001 nano-pico-milli seconds of time in several billion eternities

But the fact that you can't map the entire universe from inside the universe at a single point in time is an equally impossible challenge to overcome.

 

[FoxEye]

Here's another interesting thought that hasn't previously occurred to me (because I don't spend much time thinking about this stuff )

Assuming we are in a simulation, I'd previously imagined that the devices running this simulation would be so powerful as to make our technology look like Lego.

But I realised that doesn't even have to be true.

Our entire universe could be simulated on a Casio calculator (in the "outside-simulation universe").

Let's say it takes such a device a billion, billion, billion (etc) years to render 1 second of our universe. To us, it would make no difference. In the outside-simulation world we'd be frozen in time, but inside the simulation time would flow continuously.

Just that for every second of our time, the outside-simulation world would have aged a billion, billion, billion (etc) years..

What a thought.

e: Actually that probably doesn't work. How do you even simulate consciousness? Computer programs aren't conscious of anything no matter how complex. Neither are the Sims.

Can you simulate consciousness with a non-conscious simulation device? Does the simulation itself have to be conscious or bestow consciousness? I have no idea what I'm talking about. I think I'm conscious, maybe...

 

[dowie]

I still don't understand why you keep bringing up the 'in the same universe' point.

See the posts above from FoxEye and Angilion, I'm mean I'd assumed some of the problems here are a bit obvious - both the machine simulating itself and simply the issue of observing the entire universe at any given moment from within it.

Actually, it was you that brought up the point about whether it was possible to simulate. I was just responding to you:

Nope, I initially made a reply stating that predicting the future is moot and you decided to go and argue against stuff I hadn't claimed.... the reason you likely can't predict the future is that even in a deterministic system there is that sensitivity issue so approximations aren't necessarily any good, the slightest change in conditions at any point in time can dramatically affect subsequent events ergo we're talking about tracking and predicting out literally everything within the universe... which would need to be done from outside the universe itself.

 

[R.P.L]

1) You would not be able to map the state of all matter/energy at a single point in time (that I can see).
2) Your simulation would by necessity be slower than real-time. You would be able to simulate but not predict the future.

Please elaborate. I might be being dense here, but I'm not seeing how those things are a given. I only see those as a problem of computing power rather than logical impossibilities.

If the hypothetical computer was in the universe, it would therefore be required to simulate itself because it would be part of the universe. And simulate itself simulating itself because that would also be part of the universe. And simulate itself simulating itself simulating itself. Etc, ad infinitum. An infinite simulation of simulations. Which would be impossible.

Again, I'm not sure if that's actually impossible. I guess you might inevitably run out of memory. I'm not a computer scientist though, and those guys have achieved a lot of things that I don't know how to do. That is the most convincing argument that anyone's put forward in this debate about why it's not possible though.

If you have to know absolutely everything in the universe (which is a requirement for this idea), you have to do it outside the universe because doing it inside the universe recursively and infinitely adds more things that need to be known.

You only have to know exactly how everything works at the lowest level (quantum level, based on current understanding). If you've got the starting point and the algorithm right, then you inevitably end up with the same universe as we live in, assuming determinism. We're not talking about building a model of the universe as it is now, which is somewhat different.