If the universe could be defined by a 3D array with each element

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-18 at 11.15.04 AM.png (2MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1600px

The problem is where would you store 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bits of data, since at maximum density it takes the volume of the observable universe to represent that much information? There's no way without compression or simplification. And if you want it to be a simulation you can run, rather than just a recording you can play, you need more data for each point, such as information about its entanglement state.

OP, this is my idea for how to simulate the universe.

First you have to have coordinates for every possible position of a particle. Then you encode the information for where all the particles are, and what type of particle they are etc. The easiest way to store that information is to go into your simulation and put one particle of the appropriate type in each spot in your array where you want the simulation to have a particle of that type.

The best part is that you can use this simulation to predict the real universe, and it's effortless once you do the work of setting it up. Once you get the initial conditions right you can just let it go and it will simulate the universe.

>>8876948
>>8876933

So predicting the future is almost a guaranteed eventuality as long as Moore's law continues to hold?

>>8876933
Why not compress the data?

You need more than 3 dimensions of space to simulate our universe

>>8877045
Compression works on things like human readable text because of the patterns and on things like video because you can drop detail without it being too noticeable. It doesn't work on patternless data like a list of pseudorandom numbers.

>>8876933
How, exactly, do we know it ISN'T just a recording? Arguably, "time travel" would amount to nothing more than reversing the same exact events and playing them back again over and over. We could be "time traveling" all the time but we wouldn't even notice since our memories of events will always form in the exact same way. Hence "block universe".

>>8877424

I think we have some sort of guiding innate forces that cause the changes in the universe that we perceive as time. I guess since time is the fourth dimension that makes sense. So a 4D dimensional being would be able to see a 3D being at all points in time in its existence?

>>8876603
>implying particles have a well defined cartesian coordinate

you would need to model particle waves, but then split the simulation for each collapse

>>8877433
The first part of this post is really spooking me out right now.

>>8877456

Why anon? Cause it means that our existence might be based on something as basic as a couple forces beyond our control guiding our universe through spacetime?

>>8877466
Yeah.

>>8877491

I guess it is a bit sad because it would ruin the notion that people can make their own destiny.

Although if we could simulate the universe and we actively tried to do the opposite of what the simulation told us we would do what force would stop us? Is a perfect simulation not possible because of this?

>>8877532
I think a perfect simulation (or alternatively an environment, real or virtual, that is as perfect as is physically possible for us to achieve) is inevitable. Or if it's not, it's the goal we're all striving for by choosing to stay alive and continue to build civilization. It's the age-old idea of "paradise".

>>8876603
it is not possible to design a lattice model (thats what you are proposing) that simulates both GR and QM. Even just QM seems to be impossible as well

Is it Lorentz invariant?

>>8876933
Can a piece of software simulate the universe in which in runs and was created in?
No. Why assume things from our perspective? How do you know there isn't an "actual" universe that has completely different physics and scale. You also don't have to be so specific, you can use techniques to lesson the required storage and processing whilst still retaining decent accuracy.

Though I think the simulation thing is a useless thought experiment and believing in it is no different to believing in a God.

>>8877787
Kekekekekeke

>what are emulators

>>8876973
Complementarity

You cant simultaneously know all