/sci/ - Science & Math

suppose we have an iq

no the universe is chaotic

Can machine simulate itself? With limited memory, No. Its a trivial answer

Let's say what OP does is theoretically possible.
This super computer simulates everything that will be, has been, and is happening in the universe at the present moment.

Now what if I go into my garage scribble some code on the wall. A copy of what was written is now stored in this super computer. How long would it take till someone uses this method to hack this super computer? And does "how long" even mater since this computer simulates future events as well.

>>11996409
This code wouldn't be compiled and run, It would just be rendered as atoms on a wall

>>11996395
Have you never used a VM?

>>11996370
You and I are godamn quantum supercomputures. Imagine a computer simulation trillions of other quantum super computers and not only that, but their unique interactions between eachother and in their environment (which is furthermore a quantum playground). Now add the fusion in stars and hawking radiation and everything the known universe has to offer.

It would be so impossible it's funny. Simulating that would require a machine larger than the entire universe, and it still wouldn't be perfect, because it would only come up with a timeline that relied on any number of quantum trinary combinations, none of which are possible to tell beforehand. It's like having a computer tell you "you're gonna flip a coin 12 times and it's gonna land exactly hhththttthth"
Well sure, in some timeline it happened. Not mine, oh well.

>>11996440

You could take shortcuts. The fusion in stars can be abstracted out, you can instantly cut everything outside the solar system, outside Earth if you work in a few creative mechanics for probes and so on. Everything below the surface could be greatly simplified. It's like ray tracing, only bother with stuff that actually goes to our eyes.

And perhaps our brains don't work on quantum principles when they're not being looked at. The Greeks didn't know about quantum mechanics, yet they had a model of the universe that worked for them. You can probably simulate the brain pretty well with classical techniques: hell our brains can simulate others reasonably well.

>>11996422
>she believes in atoms

>>11996391
But also not truly random.

>>11996425
A VM is dependend on the machine that it is run on and therefore can not perform better than that machine. Even if we'd run a Universe simulation like a VM with the power of our entire Universe as machine, it couldn't calculate faster than our own Universe and therefore not perfectly simulate the future ahead of us at Universe scale. We could do smaller scale like earth predictions though.

>it's aware of all the variables
not possible. you cannot measure the state of the universe accurately

>>11996671
>it couldn't calculate faster than our own Universe
The universe doesn't "calculate" you retard, that's where you're wrong.
>have freight ship
>it has a computer on board powered by the ship
>"the computer is contained in the ship, therefore it can't calculate faster than the ship. This makes it impossible using it to know where the ship is heading to, because the ship will always get there before the computer even answers the question"
Do you see how stupid you are?

>>11996370
>Suppose we build a quantum supercomputer capable of simulating the entire universe
we already have this. it's called "the universe"

>>11996370
it would have to be the size of the Universe

>>11996370
Hey I also watched Devs

>>11996391
Name a single random event

>>11996370
>I have never taken a single course on thermodynamics, the thread

>>11999619
flipping a coin

You are beings in a simulated limited dimension (3) solipsistic universe due to our innate computing limitations, ironically for some reasons mentioned. Most of the stuff doesn't have to be calculated because you will never be able to know that information. 99 percent of the stuff in deep dark space is just for show. Why do you think it's all so sparse? Why do you think when you smash atoms you get those results? Ever noticed your limits when thinking about what came before 'the big bang'... or how you just have hard times remembering things?

The only thing that is calculated is your minds and what information it interfaces with. Most of you are NPCs anyway and don't have full mental capacity (can't see internal images, have no internal monologue, have low IQ or reasoning processing).

Trust me there isn't much that is calculated in the grand scheme of it. If you get close to your unified theories it might make more sense.

t. probably going to be fired but had to let you know.

>>11996370
If that were true, then the universe and reality itself emerges from the quantum computer. You'd see yourself within the simulation which also has the computer and so on.
>That we will invent it and alter our fate by simulating and observing it?
Depends if strict determinism is true.

>>11999619
If dubs this event was random.

>>11999616
hey I ALSO watched Devs
it got me into listening to Low (Congregation is such a banger)

>>11996391
>no the universe is chaotic

Interesting answer.
1. Quantum phenomena is random
2. Therefore the universe is random
3. Build a random computer
4. Expect it to make accurate predictions as if the universe is deterministic

This is your brain on Quantum.

>>11999719
not random, just too hard to be predictable
if you toss a coin twice with exact same momentum and conditions, you get same result

>>11998461
Woah, I didn't know /sci/ had fallen this far. Your understanding of physics and computation are nothing but an array of non sequiturs.

>>11998461
>t. single digit iq

>>11998461
Why don't you try to simulate your own machine with your machine, retard?

>>11996370
quantum computers use binary qubits, while the universe is continuous, not binary

so your quantum computer would have to be many times the size of the universe in order to simulate it

>>11996409
>Builds supercomputer capable of simulating the entire universe in real time
>Forgets to sanitise inputs
I could see it happening desu senpai

>>11996440
There's been strong arguments against this

>>11999619
Shooting a particle of light through a polarized filter and seeing if it quantum tunnels through or if it bounces off
Fundamentally random, no "secret underlying determinism!" whatsoever.

>>11996370
The machine could only perfectly predict outside its influence after the switch-on.
Given you have perfect information, which is probably impossible due to Heisenberg.

>>11996391
Chaotic doesn't mean random. It means extremely sensitive to minor changes in input.
>>12002374
All the apparently "true randomness" found so far can be interpreted as effectively deterministic in the context of Many Worlds.
Think states of an NFA (nondeterministic finite automaton).