/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4680382
>Simulation bound by physical size

wut?

wtf why did you put universe in quotations

>>4680394

Because a 3D universe is not identical to a real universe you and I might exist in. What's with the stupid question? If you can't or don't want to help OP then don't say anything and move along.

>>4680385
I think he meant bigger in perception

also seems theoretically possible. But how do you think a thought you've never had?

>>4680397
Yet it is still a universe, bound by scales and physical restraints.
It can be done, assuming you can render something as complex as the according to accepted theories of inflation universe. It would take a powerful machine, but in theory...
To do it in practice requires technology not currently feasible. We shall see.

The multiverse, on the other hand I cannot fathom.

Sure.

Right now it's possible that this universe is programmed along the 2D surface of a black hole. This is all just a hologram.

>>4680382
non /sci/ fag here, actually a /fit/o/citizen.

Anyway.

Our computers are a set size (i.e 5 feet long), but the information held can be vastly larger. Take for example Fallout 3, the game spans an obscene distance (103 square miles when overlayed with a map from the real world).

Now, granted only parts are rendered at a time, but all the background processes still exist. That's why random shit goes wonky.

103 square miles all contained on one little videocard, transposed onto a moniter.

With a bunch of videocards put together and shit, we could simulate a whole earth.

It's only a matter of time.

>>4680418
The question is why?

>>4680418
There's a difference between the perceived size in human terms and actual size. While you could create one that felt larger from the perspective of a human, the ultimate measure of size is complexity, and to make a simulation more complex than the reality that contains it is impossible.

>>4680436
So then it really isnt the percieved size of said universe that matters, it'd be the amount of shit going on?

>>4680440
Yeah. If you just wanted it for people to dick around in you could simplify it it enormously and unless they tried to do complex physics experiments inside the simulation they would never know.

>>4680450
So could an afterlife technically exist? We're on a never ending program, and our "god" is a user who just doesnt play?

>>4680455
Possibly. There's really no way to know yet though.

>>4680436
What if the universe had completely different laws of physics?
Is it impossible to do that?

>>4680436

>make a simulation more complex than the reality that contains it is impossible.

is this an axiom? I'd like to read more about it

>>4680465
If it had completely different laws of physics then anything could happen. We could be a simulation in a bizzaro universe, but with the laws of physics of our universe as we know them, you couldn't make a simulation just as complex as our universe inside our universe.

>>4680473

it's not true. you can model more atoms than the atoms a computer contains; you would just need to run it really fucking slowly. but considering time inside that universe is dependent on the speed at which things happen, nobody in that universe would consider anything to happening especially slowly.

and this is just with classical computers. a quantum computer with only 300 qubits can store more numbers than there are atoms in the universe, and perform calculations on all of them simultaneously. that's the power of quantum parallelism.

If the system is compressible, if it can be simplified without any loss of data, then a lesser computer should be able to do it.

>>4681161
>it's not true. you can model more atoms than the atoms a computer contains; you would just need to run it really fucking slowly.

[citation needed]

you can't because time is not discrete in our universe

and to make time not discrete in the computer universe you'd need infinite processing capacity

>>4681161
>a quantum computer with only 300 qubits can store more numbers than there are atoms in the universe
It can maybe do that but you need LOTS of numbers to model an atom so I don't think that's quite enough to simulate the whole universe.

yes, but not at the same level of complexity. it really depends on the end consumer/experiencer of the simulation.

Just get a big enough harddrive?

Firstly you should consider that there are many fields which we can not perceive which gives the universe a lot more information.
Secondly as far as we know, the universe/multiverse-s size and information held in it approaches infinity. So the question is, how do you reach infinite processing capacity and a digital "field" which has no boundaries.

>implying our universe is real and not a computer simulation

The universe itself is bigger than the thing that started it.