Consider all the things that occur within a single square meter

File: NASA-HS201427a-HubbleUltraDeepField2014-20140604.jpg (2MB, 1139x1040px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1139x1040px

>>61283959
Each dot in this image represents not a star, but an entire galaxy. The position and state of every particle is updated with exceedingly high frequency.

>>61283959
Would you actually need to simulate it at such fidelity? Surely all that would be required as a baseline is something sufficient to fool a living being. The rest can be approximated except for when under close observation. It may impact its usefulness as a 1:1 replica of a 'real-er' world but that would be making assumptions about its purpose.

install gentoo

At the smallest scale of the universe is a quantum foam of virtual particles constantly popping into existence. I don't know if it would even be possible to simulate that. You might need a computer bigger than the universe.

>>61284157
but... what about a quantum computer

File: 1361282790322.jpg (40KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 900x600px

>>61283989
You assume a galaxy is large in the grand scheme of things
It could be infinity small compared to the bigger picture which we cant ever see
Our massive could be someone elses minuscule.
We are just one rock floating in a sea of many such rocks

I love space and shit but >>>/sci/

Asking whether or not you can completely accurately run the universe in a computer is a logical paradox that makes no sense to anyone who studies physics. Google Boltzman Brains.

>>61283959
Because the ancient, forgotten eldritch creators of reality want some keks? Who knows man.

>>61283959
How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

File: The_Matrix_Movie_feat.jpg (140KB, 1500x844px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1500x844px

>>61284208
All particles operate according to set, predictable, principles.
>>61284233
Your eyes are as real as the simulation.

File: 1444395314124.gif (2MB, 1920x1070px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1070px

>>61284168

File: thebaiter.png (27KB, 527x409px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 527x409px

>>61284251

>>61284251
>All particles operate according to set, predictable, principles.

No, they don't, and they aren't even particles. Quantum Field Theory, ie the most successful theory of physics we've ever produced says particles are just a collapse of a wave function within a field and they aren't definite objects but a set of probabilities.

>>61284208

if the computer is made up of quantum particles, you surely could. boltzmann brains are not paradoxical under quantum mechanics.

>>61283989
How do scientists know the universe is a square?

>>61284289
boltzmann brains are a paradox because they would allow violation of the second law of thermodynamics. they allow an entire new universe (the lowest possible entropy) as a boltzmann brain to emerge from the highest possible state of entropy (heat death).

>>61284293
what?
this is an image taken of like .0003% of the sky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field

File: 1299491223015.jpg (273KB, 746x746px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 746x746px

>>61283959
>implying that our reality isn't an elaborate illusion
>implying that "real" is something that the human brain could quantify
>implying that simulating life would be difficult
>implying that our universe is not a holographic projection from another point
>implying that time, distance, and space aren't illusions

File: 1497910447973.jpg (38KB, 477x637px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 477x637px

>>61284276
What experiments have been conducted to support such a hypothesis?

> particles are just a collapse of a wave function within a field
Certainly such a specification simply increases the computational burden of our universe

What condition triggers the collapse of the wave function?

>>61283959
not simulated unless observed
saves a lot of power

>>61284529
What triggers the "observed" condition?

>>61284540
no idea i'm just spewing bullshit
maybe not unless in field of view to a significant scale of a being?

File: 1439553052261.jpg (38KB, 423x525px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 423x525px

>>61284276
>having faith in a theory lacking universal gravitation
>talking about quantum physics on 4chan
I bet you just read some shit on wikipedia, you don't understand the words you're regurgitating, like an NPR listener

File: 1463410776044.gif (996KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

996KB, 500x500px

>>61284323
How do you know thermodynamics is real if our universe might not be real? Perhaps we exist in a simulation where the laws of physics are radically different from the real laws of physics.

>>61284540
interacting with something else
Like how in heroes of might and magic multiplayer turns are simultaneous until you actually get close enough to the other player's army that you could possibly interact. Which electron is player 1 or player 2 doesn't matter until they touch something else.

>>61284622
>A tree doesn't fall in the woods until some "observer" sees that it fell

How cucked is science?

>>61284584
>having faith in a theory lacking universal gravitation

if you're so smart would you care to enlighten us to which quantum theory is compatible with general relativity? something that no one can even test like string theory? QFT is the best we have right now and to disregard it is stupid when we can confirm it is accurate at describing the 3 other forces

>>61283959
>square meter of the universe
a meter is a man made measurement, the fact that more of them than 1 exist on earth is proof the universe is bigger than 1 of our man made measurements

File: 1499060338353.gif (3MB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x480px

>>61284694
Maybe QFT only dictates electromagnetic processes?

File: 1498826803792.jpg (2MB, 2384x3600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2384x3600px

>>61284718
How is that relevant to the discussion?

>>61284773
how is you asking me that relevant?

>>61284773
who knows? these physics threads are nothing but youtube experts, potheads and /x/posters

>>61283959
maybe its like in games, it computes only when you query into it.

that would also explain the double slit experiment. It doesnt give a fuck which slot the particle goes through until you measure it

File: download.jpg (14KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 225x225px

>>61284986
your god is fake bro, you didnt even get gets for posting his image

>>61283989
and people still have the nerve to say there is no God.

>>61285014
The double slit results also occur when the experiment is performed with electrons. All objects travel according to a probability wave function; there is some specific interaction that occurs that causes the wave function to collapse into what we can detect as a "particle".

>>61285110
How do you manipulate the process? How do I collapse the lottonumbers into the ones i picked?

also, how do I collapse the post ID's of this forum to get an get

>>61283959
Infinite. Accurately modeling even a single molecule would require more power than the output of the sun.

>>61283989
It's called lod

>>61285125
>How do you manipulate the process?

You can't. It would require a causality violation (ie time travel). If you mean something more simple, you can affect the result of the slit experiment just by looking at different things. Position and velocity aren't possible to know at the same time at quantum scales. Measure one and you can't measure the other.

>>61285166
there are surely ways to manipulate it. highly improbable things happen all the time. I doubt this universe functions only on an probability level..

I would guess belief would be one way.

>>61285183
>I doubt this universe functions only on an probability level..

Einstein didn't want to believe it either but from the experiments we've done it sure seems to be the likeliest way things work.

>>61285219
this would mean the outcomes are predetermined.

this universe is then nothing but an elaborate 3d immersive movie we are watching from a specific point of view.

if thats true, fuck this, I want to leave the cinema.

>>61283959
>What would be the computational power needed to comprehensively simulate everything that occurs within it?
How do you even expect to get an answer?

We have no clue what even is happening, how could we ever simulate it?

>>61284276
Quantum physics is like the psychology field of science. Its a joke. In theory it states that if I walk into a wall long enough ill be able to pass through it. Then you get into forced explanations for dark matter

>>61284456
This sums it up. There's no real tangible evidence that the universe isn't an illusion aside from astronauts and even that tons of people don't believe we went to the moon. If you can't see it for yourself does it really exist? We're still debating whether or not certain dinosaurs had feathers

>>61285260
>In theory it states that if I walk into a wall long enough ill be able to pass through it.

No it doesn't. Just because the math says there's a possibility that a macroscopic object can do whatever, doesn't actually mean it will. The universe is heavily biased towards the most likely probability and discussing the ones like teleportation outside of equations is pointless because their probability is so low that it's considered statistically impossible. Also, no credible physicist believes in other weird mathematical like singularities or infinities.

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-20 at 03.31.06.png (1MB, 1094x794px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1094x794px

>>61284233
>>61284586
>>61284456
There is no spoon.

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-20 at 03.41.00.png (1MB, 1082x789px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1082x789px

>>61285297
>There's no real tangible evidence that the universe isn't an illusion
physics has predictable outcomes. The simulation that maintains the fabric of your existence has pre-determinable outcomes in regards to the behaviors of particles; the act in accordance with principles or functions that define them.

>>61285245
>this universe is then nothing but an elaborate 3d immersive movie
> I want to leave the cinema
Care to explain what problems you are having with the movie?

>>61283959
BECAUSE WE USED TO THINK THAT KILOBYTES WERE HUGE

>>61285504
>Care to explain what problems you are having with the movie?
its not the way I want it. the main character (me) is loosing.

File: The_Oracle.jpg (128KB, 1600x835px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1600x835px

>>61285542
In what way are you loosing? Maybe we can help you.

Have you considered any of the following:
> Curse or hex lain upon you by some one/thing
> Karma from current life
> Karma from previous life
> Negative energy
> Sensitivity to the energies emitted by computers and power lines
> Spiritual oppression
> Demonic torment
> Damaged aura
> Absorption of negative energies

>>61285601
well, if its predetermined, wtf should I bother? The only option I would have is not to watch the movie.

>>61285601

pls fuck off back to >>>/r/trees or >>>/x/

>>61284252
>that image
>someone took the time to make that

>>61285708
>wtf should I bother?
That is the predetermined matrix talking buddy. You should bother so that you can improve your situation and live the life you want.

File: 1499591453534.png (44KB, 800x554px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x554px

((((((GRAVITY))))))

At the smallest possible scale is the plank length; every plankto second, every plank cube in the universe is updated; the maths is very simple and involves basic applications of force equations. Composites of different arrangements lead to the complex particle behavior we see.

File: (you).jpg (114KB, 1204x680px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1204x680px

>>61285756

>>61286226
hey, give one of those too

File: pathetic.png (2MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2000px

>>61286246

>>61284157
or just let the universe run at half speed ... or just simulate a smaller universe

>>61284182
another possibility would be that our flow of time would be slower

>>61283959
>Why would such power be wasted in such a way?

So delusional fucks can have their own bubble inside of which to play god?

>>61286652
And to gain knowledge, or maybe a form of escapism (be a famous rockstar in a simulation)

>>61283959
Planck Time

>>61286701
That is an excellent point. By increasing the planck time, you could lower the amount of computational power you need to simulate it

>>61286531
feels gud man
btw who is this ejaculate encourager
she looks like that nip ai virtua waifu but how is she in all these random ass poses, did someone port her to gnu/linux

>>61286795
and it would take infinite amount of our time to simulate 1 second of the simulated time..

I shit, I stepped into a vsauce video.

>>61287112
Why? The simulated universe doesn't need to be as complex as the real one

>>61287039
Virtual YouTuber Kizuna Ai desu

>>61284721
ok, but I still think you're pop science dabbler who's explaining things he doesn't understand
>>61284694
stop posting

there's an event horizon with every system. if we're being deterministic about it, there's no such thing as an event horizon but the affects from other systems in a deterministic model are so minute that they don't affect outcomes 99.99999999 ... % of the time.

Although systems are based on simple rules down to quantum and atomic structures, these rules scale to more macroscopic affects. Because we can know, based on induction, how the combination of these rules work we can reduce the need to simulate the microscopic rules.

>>61283959

>What would be the computational power needed to comprehensively simulate everything that occurs within it?

This questions is a problem in itself.

You see, a simulation is ALWAYS an abstraction. You want to simulate some aspects.

You can not - I repeat: YOU CAN NOT - predict the future of even the smallest systems of a certain degree of complexity with 100%. It's just not possible.

The idea to grab all "important aspects" and predict exactly how things will behave is indeed very old - look up "laplace daemon". But Chaotic systems are just not predictable. Even a stupid double pendulum can't be predicted after a veyr short amount of time.

Just deal with it.


>Why would such power be wasted in such a way?

You mistake events for a simulation. A simulation is a simplification of something that already exists.

Look at it this way:
It's takes little effort to paint a new picture.
But it's almost impossible to make an exact copy of that picture.

Creating/Transforming = simple
Modeling/Predicting = very hard

There are MMOs with dozens of square miles with thousands of people on simultaneously.

You honestly wouldn't know the difference a single model with a gravity applied versus a trillion atoms with trillion different equations running.

Even now MMOs can run with millions of people, simulated by currently technology, not even a fraction of mankind's computation power. By time of the Matrix, I'm guessing the actual human population is fairly low, in the millions, if not hundreds of thousands. So all in all, not that much energy needed to create a low ping, high fidelity MMO simulation.

>>61290472
you can't predict with our current technology. Maybe after the singularity this all won't be a problem anymore

>>61290485
Did you ever have a dream? The only computational power we need to simulate a reality that isn't distinguishable from the real world is a brain. We can't tell the difference from a dream

>>61285900
>quantum mechanics
>standard model
>very simple

>>61285900
>very simple
>quantum mechanics is still full of bugs

pick one

>>61285900
nice dubs

File: (16).jpg (60KB, 550x366px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 550x366px

>tfw your time perception will snap as soon as you die, billions of years will pass in an instant like they did before you were born
>tfw think the probability to experience something as life form again is non existent; even if you were reborn somehow, your experience as life will be completely different
>spend my time alive posting on a chinese cartoon board

>>61284670
The tree itself would be the observer in this case you fucking dolt

the fucking xkcd writer understands this better than you guys, it doesn't need to be at any 'speed'. our perception of time is not relevant to whoever could be simulating us.

>>61285854
you would also be the predetermined matrix though, same as me

>>61284584
>hurr durr the theory isn't a theory of everything so it is completely useless and doesn't describe nature
Spoken like a true scientist.

>>61292987
correct, it's like rendering movies, your PC doesn't need to render it at real time, the result will still be at real time.
consider that each "frame" of the universe takes an unknown but long, (would there be time above this universe?) amount of time.
Each x frames you process the information around you.
It doesn't matter if the universe is paused or stopped, we wouldn't realize it, because in the end, the simulation will always be resumed.

Logically it would be impossible to ever simulate our universe, as it would require infinite computational power.
How to prove this? In order to simulate our universe from within our universe, you would have to simulate the simulation that you just made (as the simulation itself is part of the universe), and within that simulation you'd have to simulate the simulation again, creating infinite recursion of this simulation, thus requiring infinite computational power as the simulation is called infinitely many times in an infinitesimal period of time.
It may be possible to simulate a smaller, isolated universe, but it would be impossible to simulate a universe in which you'd be able to simulate that universe from within it.

>>61292755
this guy gets it, the (perceived) speed of time is the amount of information we can process/get at that moment.

>>61293223
Your argument doesn't make sense. It is impossible to gather enough imformation to simulate our universe atom for atom (uncertairnity principle) and even then, due to quantum physics it is questionable if the universe would be deterministic anyways.

Also, simulation always works with a MODEL of reality, so we could abstract many things out.

>>61293768
Yea obviously one of my assumptions is that the universe is finite and has finitely many possible states.
Determinism may not be a necessary assumption as you can simulate a random number generator that is genuinely random (perhaps using a hardware RNG).
The only downside is (thinking in terms of many world's interpretation) your simulation would simulate one of the possible universes that exists, which it is improbable that you'd just happen to simulate our universe.
I'm trying to just show that logically, even if we allow for finite discreteness of the universe, and perhaps even determinism, it would be impossible to simulate the universe because it is a logical impossibility.

>>61293840
I guess you are right in what you want to say. But if you simulated a universe (not the universe) we obivously would chose one that is feasible and optimize the hell out of it

>>61283959

>>61283959

You don't need to simulate anything precisely until someone or something observes it.

Analogously, in a video game, models which are far from the camera are swapped out for low-poly versions.

Also, you don't need to simulate anything in real-time. The flow of time to observers inside a simulation is independent of any render time.