The Cyclops

Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
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.
Sure.

1) Recording/observing the precise state of all matter and energy at every part of the universe at precisely the same instant.

a) Access - recording the precise state of all matter/energy at the centre of the Earth; the centre of a black hole
b) Timing - measuring anything takes time, how do you measure the precise state of all matter and energy in a way that allows you to build a picture of everything at *exactly the same point in time*.

2) Slower than real time

a) Every electron whizzing around your simulation is simulating something, but it also needs to simulate itself. It can't do two jobs at once (simulate the thing and simulate itself). Ergo you need another pass (with another bunch of electrons) to simulate the movement of the first electron (that was simulating the other thing) and so on and so on.

Note here that this isn't a problem of recursion, but merely a problem of speed/inability to multi-task. The device needs to simulate its own constituent parts, but it can't do that at the same time as simulating the other things with its constituent parts, so it has to use multiple passes.

As I said in the another thread, the universe is the quickest and most accurate simulation of itself, because all parts are just doing one job.

If a part of that universe has to simulate the whole universe, then by definition they must be slower at doing so than the universe itself. Ergo slower than real-time simulation.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,999
Location
Just to the left of my PC
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.

Simulating the computer itself would only be the start, though. The required level of simulation is that every property of all matter and all energy in the entire universe is included in the simulation. The act of running the simulation would change some of those things, so the simulation would also have to be included in the simulation. Which would change some of those things, so the simulation of the simulation would have to be included in the simulation. The requirements for the simulation are infinite even if it is possible to instantaneously know every property of all matter and energy in the universe with absolute precision.

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 :p

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.

That too. As thought experiments go, this one is pretty out there.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,999
Location
Just to the left of my PC
[..] 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.

That's an interesting point. Although if you wanted to use it to calculate the future (which is what this thread is about) you would have to build a model of the universe as it is now. And how it will be in the future. You could start at the very beginning (it's a very good place to start) and let the simulation run, but the simulation would have to model everything in order to be able to use every property of all energy and matter in the universe to calculate the future.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Simulating the computer itself would only be the start, though. The required level of simulation is that every property of all matter and all energy in the entire universe is included in the simulation. The act of running the simulation would change some of those things, so the simulation would also have to be included in the simulation. Which would change some of those things, so the simulation of the simulation would have to be included in the simulation. The requirements for the simulation are infinite even if it is possible to instantaneously know every property of all matter and energy in the universe with absolute precision.
Fundamentally, the simulation constituent parts are the same material as all the non-simulation parts, that being matter and energy, therefore simulating itself is not a problem. Ignore for one moment that the simulation device is the one running the simulation. It is just more matter and energy in the data set. Why is it any different... The course of its own energy and matter and their interactions abide by the same rules as everything else.

The simulation will simulate its own movements (workings) in the same way it simulates the rest of the universe. Not in real-time as said, but it will necessarily show the movements of all its constituent parts as they moved during the course of running the simulation. I can't see any problem of recursion here. Fundamentally it's just more matter and energy, and all matter and energy is encapsulated by the simulation.

But what that does mean is that the simulation is much, much slower than real-time in its output.


That does bring us to another unsolvable problem tho. The simulation dataset is every particle in the universe. How do you store that dataset as the simulation runs? You can't, lol.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
That's an interesting point. Although if you wanted to use it to calculate the future (which is what this thread is about) you would have to build a model of the universe as it is now<snip>
Or even to calculate the starting point (which you can't guess!). You'd have to work backwards from what you have now.

If you used a made-up starting point you wouldn't get anywhere near where we are now.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Mar 2012
Posts
2,308
Location
London(ish)
That too. As thought experiments go, this one is pretty out there.

That's the only worthwhile type of thought experiment :)

That does bring us to another unsolvable problem tho. The simulation dataset is every particle in the universe. How do you store that dataset as the simulation runs? You can't, lol.

Yes, thinking about it while trying to sleep, this is actually the main problem I 'discovered' that I couldn't see earlier.

Or even to calculate the starting point (which you can't guess!). You'd have to work backwards from what you have now.

If you used a made-up starting point you wouldn't get anywhere near where we are now.

Indeed. An accurate simulation would require you to know the exact state of the universe right before the big bang, assuming that is actually the beginning. That is an interesting idea of working backwards to discover what that state was like though, although of course that would require you to map the whole current universe particle for particle, accurately simulate how particles behave and run it backwards :D
 
Associate
Joined
20 Mar 2012
Posts
2,308
Location
London(ish)
Another thought that just popped into my head is quantum indeterminacy and wave-particle duality being seen by some as evidence that we're living in a simulation, the thinking being that particles aren't 'rendered' fully unless someone's observing in order to save processing power. One of the theories used to support simulation theory is that civilisations inevitably reach the stage that they can develop lifelike simulations, leaving us with the possible scenarios of either being the first to achieve it (assuming we do), or the more probable one that it's already happened many times over and therefore we're living in such a simulation (I seem to remember reading that Elon Musk is a proponent of this theory). If it's correct that it's not possible to simulate an entire universe of equal size and complexity to the 'parent' universe then you'd either have to simulate a significantly smaller one (resulting in smaller and smaller child universes for each subsequent simulation) or you'd need to employ such processing power-saving measures.

Now, I really need to stop thinking and start sleeping...
 
Associate
Joined
26 Oct 2007
Posts
1,282
Seems the cyclops with 1 eye has been replaced with quantum computing that still can't predict the OP death date.

And yes i would like to know, it would make my pension easier to justify - or not.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Nov 2003
Posts
5,290
Location
St Breward Cornwall
Maybe a Logans run (in my blu Ray collection) scenario would be good (no not just a bra less 24 Yr old jenny agutter running around) where we all get reborn (spoiler murdered ) at 30 but have an existence of unlimited sex on tap and general happyness, no illness, but maybe, no definetly 30 is too young, so reborn (murdered) at say 60 but with an amazing life, I would buy into this (puts down the bong)

 
Back
Top Bottom