[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 187 KB, 720x960, dress like Carl Sagan day.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1672910 No.1672910 [Reply] [Original]

Could we ever invent the universe in a computer?

>> No.1672914

I sure hope so, I've been waiting to make an apple pie for a long ass time.

>> No.1672916

A universe? sure
Our universe? no

Making a universe is easy.

In a sense, any computer program is a "universe".

>> No.1672925

>>1672916
>Our universe? no
Why not?

>> No.1672924

>>1672916
You seem to get your perception of computers from Tron and Reboot.

>> No.1672933

>>1672925
You can't simulate all of the particles in our universe without actually using that number of particles. Unless you want to consider our universe itself a "computer", it wouldn't work.

>> No.1672944

>>1672910
Then we could make an apple pie from scratch using only a computer!

>> No.1672966
File: 158 KB, 1041x789, gDG5j.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1672966

>>1672914

>> No.1672970

>>1672933
I'm sure there are aspects of the universe which can be expressed in a lesser amount of particles than are involved in these aspects.

>> No.1672976

>>1672970

No, there isn't. There is only one way to perfectly represent the quantum state of a particle:

Put a particle in that state.

Lrn2lossless compression.

>> No.1673003

>>1672966
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpyGhABXRA

>> No.1673005

>implying that "our" universe isn't a computer simulation

>> No.1673014

>>1672966

Made my night. Thank you, good Anon.

>> No.1673114

>>1672976
Yeah, perfect simulation does require essentially doing those things.
However.
At the macro level, things behave in extremely predictable ways - law of large numbers and all that. If you just simulate the macro level and then break off into more precise calculations only when quantum effects are likely to be noticeable at the macro level, you could do it just fine.

tl;dr - you can just drop precision.

>> No.1673127
File: 8 KB, 304x63, Apparently Science.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1673127

No, because to accurately simulate this universe, the computer would have to simulate itself. (Thankyou Godel)

>>also, check out the captcha

>> No.1673143

No, there is only a certain amount of information in the universe, no more can be created, so we'd have to take all of the information that there is to simulate the universe....unless maybe we didn't express what certain elementary particles actually did unless they were being observed by the simulated beings....

>> No.1673194

How about we rephrase the question. Can this universe be simulated by a very powerful computer (which lies outside the universe and is not constrained by the universe)?

I think so.

>> No.1673201

>>1673194
and it wouldn't even have to follow rules of causality.

>> No.1674249

What if we as humans could find a way to express universal data in a way more efficient than energy and/or matter? I.e. express all the possible states of one particle in the single state of a given human-defined datum

>> No.1674264

>>1674249
This would be a violation of the information-theoretic definition of entropy.

>> No.1674275

Adding information to the universe violates entropy? What about hawking radiation?

>> No.1674296 [DELETED] 

>>1674275
It has been proven to not work. The information for everything that exists is written on the outside of the universe, and the same is true for black-holes. Their information is written on the inside of their event horizon.

>> No.1674298

>>1674275
It has been proven to not work. The information for everything that exists is written on the event horizon of the universe, and the same is true for black-holes. Their information is written on the inside of their event horizon.

>> No.1674308

this

it is inevitable - it is the singularity as you call it

but why would you want to do that. its the same unimaginative shit that plagues the video games industry. realistic doesnt mean based on reality, it just has to be coherent.

this being the perfect parallel, reality is nothing but a video game.

>> No.1674335

>>1674308

Hey jackass does it say /phil/ up there? Did anyone ask for your convoluted sophistry or for your best a Yoda impression? No. STFU.

Whether or not entropy can be overcome by data is interesting, your emo self-justification for a lack of accountability is not.

>> No.1674356

I've generated thousands of worlds in my computer, with millions of inhabitants with varying degrees of intelligence. Most of them I've slaughtered mercilessly.

>> No.1674373
File: 58 KB, 600x450, 1264894230161.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1674373

>>1674335

>> No.1674380

sauce wiki

"There has recently been proposed a limit on the computational power of the universe, i.e. the ability of Laplace's Demon to process an infinite amount of information. The limit is based on the maximum entropy of the universe, the speed of light, and the minimum amount of time taken to move information across the Planck length, and the figure was shown to be about 10120 bits[2]. Accordingly, anything that requires more than this amount of data cannot be computed in the amount of time that has elapsed so far in the universe. However, since Laplace's demon is entirely imaginary and does not necessarily need to follow the laws of the universe, this is an erroneous impossibility of the situation."

>> No.1674431
File: 20 KB, 650x450, 02080_1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1674431

Well there you go. Universes most powerful computer can only process 6Mb per proton decay

>> No.1674496

>>1673194
For that to happen the computer would have to be the same exact size and shape as the universe.

To me the more interesting question is could my experience of life be a computer simulation? With my limited perception and senses, they could cut a lot of corners and still create a convincing world.

>> No.1674532

QUANTUM COMPUTAH

>> No.1674614

>>1674496
Yes, of course it could. In fact, from a certain perspective, it's by far the most probable:

Assume you're not living in a simulation. It seems pretty much inevitable that at some point we'll be simulating pieces of universes (of slightly lower complexity than ours). What's more, other intelligent life would probably be doing the same thing. So for all the intelligent things born into the universe, the vast majority would be within a simulation.

Also, this isn't just idle speculation - if we are living in a simulation, my first inclination is to get out. Or at least move up a level. I don't even know why I'd want to. It's practically a compulsion.

>> No.1674628

You want to enter a whole new world and universe?

Download World of Warcraft today only for the cheap low low low low price of $49.99 starting and at $14.99 per month, a three-month plan at $13.99 per month, and a six-month plan at $12.99 per month!

Buy it today!

>> No.1674910
File: 472 KB, 550x595, mybrain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1674910

you guys speak like the universe is so complicated.
realistically most of this shit can be broken down to a few sets of rules (like phi) and just a bunch of particles and shit doing their own thing.

an aerial view of a river looks similar to the way our veins branch.

like really. you could just set a bunch of rules like physics and then bust your nut and your sperm turns into the big bang, and since your sperm is following the rules you predetermined then the universe would expand and everything inside it would follow these rules.

like with gravity 2 objects are pretty predictable on what they are going to do, but 3 objects and youre in for a cluster fuck of pretty much impossible math. although both scenarios follow the same rules, just the more things involved make it crazier to solve.

>> No.1674914
File: 19 KB, 127x127, mc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1674914

You could probably simulate a universe in a computer. I guess it depends what your criteria for a universe is. If that universe is simply created within our universe I guess it's can't really be anything past a simulation.

>> No.1674923

>>1674914
so youre
>implying everything is already predetermined?
thats what it sounds like.

>> No.1674924

>>1674910
It's hilarious how someone with a shallow grasp of all of science will declare that the UNIVERSE IS SIMPLE! just because it works like this: The universe follows some rules guys, get it yet?!

Do you think Einstein or Feynman would describe the universe as simple or have the gall to claim they understand it all?

Go fuck yourself.

>> No.1674932

>>1674923
No...well. I think that within the context of our immediate existence there are some "rules" to which nature conforms, but ultimately it all has to be random.

>> No.1674946

>>1674924
we've figured out how fast light can travel
we've figured out the coldest possible temperature
both unreachable but they are just rules of the universe.
just because we cant achieve either of them doesnt mean shit. us, humans, have found the invisible boundaries of the universe AND DEFINED THEM. just because we havent discovered dark matter doesnt mean we wont. we already have the calculations of dark matter now yet it hasnt been proven.

fuck you

>> No.1674957

>>1674946
My initial point stands, also please stop trying to imply some kind of glory by proxy, you are not smart or special.

>> No.1674976

>>1674957
>Could we ever invent the universe in a computer?
yes we could. we have the laws of physics that can be defined. we dont need to account for every single particle, just set the amount of particles and set instructions on how they react with one another (phi and gravity.) the only thing that would be difficult to create is life. this is the only thing we havent been able to figure out
>implying we aren't already in that computer.

>> No.1674982

>>1674924
yeah its fucking simple as in we can break it down to very elementary components. Aristotle said something to the effect of 'affinity for analogy is the mark of genius' and the Egyptian mathematician Ahmes said, "Accurate reckoning: the entrance into knowledge of all existing things and all obscure secrets". Well if you know 2 bits about science then you understand ALL things seek equilibrium thus it is easy to explain electricity with water. Oh and thermal dynamics, is that complex? Hell no it ain't! In a sense its all describing the same shit: the flow of energy. BOOM! Now you at chemistry boy and all you do is count to eight and match your positive to your negative. So here is where shit gets complicated but its no more complicated then counting stars - basically complex by virtue of quantity.

If you're fixated on material names then your destined suck some other guys cock for the rest of your life rather than thinking for yourself, learning the simple rules (i.e. E=mc^2) and having to fight off the waves of cock-suckers coming at you. The word fractal breaks down reality pretty far and pretty fast but based off your statement you might need to research that word. You want to know where confusion comes from?? The fucking past and the people clinging to and utilizing the past for their own selfish gains.

Also, you must be a hard left-brainer.

>> No.1674984

>>1674976
So you are implying(sigh) that we are in an infinite series of computer generated universes? Because a computer is a machine invented by humans, so unless you are using a metaphor(which I hope you are), you are implying that humans are god. Where did it all start?

Not a simulation or a computer game, pure randomness. Is there any other answer? No.

>> No.1674993

>>1674982
Look. You are oversimplifying things in an effort to prove your point. Also, the fact that you just brush off "left brainers" is telling.

So after we can explain every phenomenon in the universe with science where does that leave us? With a bunch of details. You will say nothing else matters...but I say it will leave us exactly where we started. I'm not anti-science or religious, I just think you are obscenely pretentious, and not half as smart as you think you are.

>> No.1674994

>>1674924
>Do you think Einstein or Feynman would describe the universe as simple

Einstein actually said "God doesn't play dice" referring to the idea of quantum physics, but it applies to your questions haha
Einstein would say fundamentally its pretty simple. there are rules for everything.
we've found out chaos isn't so chaotic
so fuck your shit

>> No.1674998

>>1674993
explain
what phenomenon are you referring to?

>> No.1675002

>>1674993
You think we are going to be left with a bunch of details because you're conditioned to think that way. Prediction comes at a cost, action comes with focus and it's not as hard as you may think to DO the extraordinary.

Also discernment helps especially when speculation rules our political super-powered structures.

>> No.1675003

>>1674994
Rules are precarious and have nothing propping them up but themselves. Also, there are plenty of areas in science, for example, climatology, where chaos is the rule. I hate to break it to you, but no leading scholars around today would have the hubris to say "everything's simple, it's just rules!"

How old are you? You are naive.

>> No.1675012
File: 1.25 MB, 2560x1920, Mandel_zoom_00_mandelbrot_set.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675012

Don't mind me, im just sitting here being a simple equation making an infinitely long unsimplifying forever zooming graph

>> No.1675013

>>1675002
oh yeah, I forgot to add:
once we know that everything you like to call phenomenon then you can throw prediction out of the social construct as it will start to become, where needed, second nature.

When I hear people describe the world as complex its hard not to see them as limited within their own time-frame (not one of those who in vision, imagine and idealize the future or do anything to be apart of it) and using that 'complexity' as an excuse to not reach their own greatness.

The bitch about life is it's usually ONE problem we/you can't solve that causes MANY of them.

>> No.1675016
File: 56 KB, 700x526, photopodborka0258172490.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675016

>>1675002
Look. You might be content to just write of meaning and reasons as human endeavors, and they are. But I don't think any of your scientific idols feel the same, looking at the big picture.

I mean, as a fan of science, aren't you predisposed to curiosity? So there is this bundle of patterns known as our existence just floating in the void, and you are at a loss for explanation, so you just write it off as nonsense, betraying your proported scientific ideals.

Think about that for a second before explaining another physical law to me and then writing anything else as nonsense.

>> No.1675030

>>1675003
LOL YOU FUCKING IDIOT LOLOLOL
bringing in climatology
that shit is so cash.
CHAOS IS SIMPLE IT FOLLOWS A SET RULE.
the RESULTS of chaos are unpredictable
the chaos is not.

you have no idea what you're talking about...ever.

>> No.1675034

>>1675016
no, I look at "floating in the void" like a good riddle. If life was destined to be unending complexity with no uniformity anywhere then I would have given up a long time ago but luckily for me I found out, when it came to this science stuff, I could catch on to things before they were spoken or their subject brought up.

>> No.1675037

>>1675030
Thanks, that explained a lot. WE UNDERSTAND IT, ITS JUST THAT ITS UNPREDICTABLE BY NATURE THEREFORE WE UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS"


Are you trolling me? If not you are truly moronic.


BTW, the left brain is more meaningful in the long run.

: )

>> No.1675047

>>1675034
I guess you are going to be the next Nostradamus, because I don't think anyone is currently able to predict the future.

>> No.1675048
File: 99 KB, 737x599, 737px-Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675048

>>1675037
>>1675037
>>1675037
OMG TURBULENCE!!!! ITS SO CHAOTIC!!!!

>> No.1675053
File: 116 KB, 468x468, galaxy11_468x468.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675053

>>1675037
>>1675048
wait...where have i seen that shape before?
oh yeah, thats right its a recurring form in nature do to it being pretty much a law of nature.

>> No.1675057
File: 200 KB, 500x375, sunflower.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675057

>>1675037
>>1675037
>>1675037
>>1675048
>>1675053
OMG OMG OMG SUNFLOWERS ARE SO CHAOTIC!!!!! LOOK AT THAT SPIRAL OF SEEDS.

>> No.1675062

>>1675048
I accept your unconditional surrender.


This thread is a great example of science fan-boys betraying their supposed ideals. Let's forget any kind or actual argument, just type "UR STOOPID THERE ARE LAWS AND THEERIES DUURRR"

I am disappointed in you guys fa reel. And I'm not religious. You can do better.

Fucking...you morons think you are on the same side as all of the people you worship when you just spout off complete bullshit and refuse to participate in any kind of meaningful debate? Fuck you all.

>> No.1675065

>>1675037
>BTW, the left brain is more meaningful in the long run.
you might be correct. I can see a future where we no longer are in need of right-brainers to figure new things out. Not because humans will have figured everything out but it just how sufficiency, satisfaction and a post-scarcity world would work where the most prominent left-brainers are used to maintain and replicate that which we are ultimately satisfied with over and over and over again.

All, and I mean all, right-brainers eventually become radicalized manic-depressants destined for suicide or "terrorism"

>> No.1675068

>>1675037
>>1675037
>>1675037
dont mind me, im just a hurricane using my fractals for form in your example.

>> No.1675069
File: 44 KB, 500x400, hurricane_fran_nasa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675069

forgot my image
lol

>> No.1675070

>>1675057
But if you had to explain them you would have nothing to say.

"bb b b but someone else know I guesss...SCIENCE GUYS!? right?"

LOL

Pathetic, you are a hypocrite and charlatan of the highest order, sir!

>> No.1675073

>>1675047
prediction is THE vital part of science fag! And by vital I mean nobody would have payed any attention to it ever during the course of history without it.

>> No.1675077
File: 68 KB, 640x480, fotopodborka0366836932.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675077

Well, this thread has proved to me that not even on the "science" board, can people maintain any kind of rational adult conversation. This board is pathetically hypocritical.

I'm out y'all YEEEAAAAUUUHHHH

>> No.1675078
File: 35 KB, 500x331, roswellfracs1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675078

check me out. same rules to determine how my arms spiral makes completely different looking shapes when you mix liquid and dirt/material

>> No.1675082

>>1675070
x0=0
x1=1
x0+x1=x2
x2=1
x1+x2=x3
x3=2
x2+x3=x4
x4=3
x3+x4=x5
x5=5
x4+x5=x6
x6=8
5+8=13
8+13=21
13+21=34

it is pretty simple actually. the point i was trying to make.

>> No.1675083

>>1675073
I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

>> No.1675085
File: 9 KB, 120x120, photopodborka0459251073.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675085

>>1675082
I......don't say this often, I am a lot smarter than you. You are cute. Also, pathetic.

>> No.1675088

>>1675083
Yeah cause I'm not one of your gullible, impressionable (stupid) friends who is going to go along with how you misinterpreted me.

>> No.1675094

>>1675088
Scientific prediction is limited. You are jumping the gun to prove your point and are acting like you could tell me where I will be next tuesday at noon due to science.

>> No.1675096
File: 29 KB, 300x331, snowflake-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675096

>>1675085
lol stop trolling
you are too dumb to realize chaos isn't that chaotic.
you haven't made any claims as to why the universe couldn't be made with a computer (even if it is a super computer.) make your point already. you brought in climate and chaos and i've pointed out that they really aren't that complex. the only reason turbulence is so crazy is because we cant actually measure the movement of atoms perfectly.

more on chaos. this snow flake, although completely random and will never be recreated exactly still follows the same set of rules as everything else.

>> No.1675100

>>1675094
well given the nature of the universe, so far, is best described as probability I probably will be able to do exactly that and if you wouldn't be ashamed of where-ever that place may be at that time then you won't mind that I, or anyone else for that matter, could predict it or that you are predictable.

Of course if you have any insecurities, to a 'bad' or even 'horrible' degree, then you might try to fight to the death against a future with such precision.

>> No.1675107

>>1675096
would it make sense to create a universe that has only one atom in it? Could we generate that? What about two?

Would constants be different in a universe with less mass? How do we know that everything in our universe isn't traveling near the speed of light? Oh wait, I forgot, its relative. Scratch that.

>> No.1675116

>>1675107
maybe I'm misunderstanding you for a moment.. but... you are implying that we really can't know how fast the universe's uniform motion really is.... right?

>> No.1675124
File: 29 KB, 280x282, quantumjunction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675124

>>1675107
traveling at the speed of light?
im pretty positive we aren't.
blah blah if you're on a train going the speed a light and you shine a flash light blah blah.
but we think we know the size of the universe and we can judge the speed at which the stars and galaxies around us are moving away from us. therefor you're a down syndrome baby.

>> No.1675125

guys its called the sims, are you nuts?

>> No.1675127

>>1675116
Um, you are right in that that is what I WAS saying before I realized that motion is relative... and I'll delete my post before I admit to being that stupid.

But no, I'm just wondering... I've always felt that there was a lot of wisdom to be gained from imagining a universe with only one particle in it. There is something there I can't exactly grasp...

>> No.1675130

>>1675096
My original point, if you've forgotten or never understood it in the first place, was that you might make a simulation of the universe with a computer, but it's still a simulation.

That "universe" is still made in the context of the existence which is our universe.

Do you understand that?

>> No.1675132
File: 25 KB, 400x300, 8].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675132

>>1675127
one particle...infinitely exploding all at once giving birth to the universe maybe

>> No.1675138

>>1675096
Chaos isn't chaotic, in other news, news isn't news and the sky isn't the sky. Humans aren't human and dogs are cats.

>> No.1675141

>>1675124
no, you are just on the defensive and/or trolling, so yeah way to not understand uniformity or special relativity. There goes any possible conversations with you about that!

>> No.1675142

>>1675130
what point are you trying to make?

>> No.1675148

>>1675100
That's an interesting strawman you've constructed to help you prove your own premises.

>> No.1675158

>>1675142
My original point, which was that you can't create a universe. If we made some simulation that recreated what we know as a universe it would just be another facet of our universe. Right?

>> No.1675164

>>1675158
yeah
>implying we aren't already in someone's computer simulation of a universe
still don't see what point you're trying to make.

>> No.1675170

>>1675127
you got me thinking in the same direction

last time I was contemplating the metaphysics I came up with 'probability before time' in terms of dimensional order/magnitude, meaning this: a state-time needs a probability-state-set but a probability-state-set does not need a state-time. To relate that back to your contemplating maybe you could see that single particle interfering with itself by interacting with all of its probable-states and one of the probabilities ultimately attracting other probabilities into the same state out of the set by some means of force we are far from understanding (maybe something related to dark-matter and energy).

Anyways, hope that helps in some way!

>> No.1675171
File: 36 KB, 500x500, tony_little_gazelle_freestyle_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675171

>>1675164
See...I don't see how that "we are already in the matrix!" means anything. Even if we were, where were the makers of the matrix? THE UNIVERSE? Step back and look at the big picture before you say that nonsense.

>> No.1675189
File: 204 KB, 638x454, meow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675189

Disclaimer:

The Matrix was made in a computer made by humans. So saying we are all just in a matrix answers NOTHING, because all of your causes for a matrix existed after the supposed matrix you are proposing. See? You are putting the cart before the horse and betraying the whole spirit of science stuffz.

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO GETS THIS?

>> No.1675193

>>1675171
you're on about climatology and chaos now you want defined answers how it all began.

no im not a matrix fanboy but realistically why couldn't us, humans, be in a universe made from a computer. there are crazier theories on how it all began.

>> No.1675196

>>1675189
who is to say they are human.
who is to say we are the only sentient life form in the universe.
the creation of life is still unknown.
one truth to life though is evolution (stfu christfags)

>> No.1675198

>>1675193
Doooode......


I'm not saying that isn't possible, I NEVER said that. I was saying that whether or not that is true, it' completely besides the point. Do you understand what I'm getting at?

>> No.1675199

Now I can't wait to see where this goes.

>> No.1675202

>>1675196
Can you please get farther from the point?

>> No.1675204

>>1675170
oh, oops forgot...

because of the probabilities being gathered into what appears to be infinitesimal distances apart due to their high proximity in term of probable positioning (they have an infinite void to be anywhere they like so naturally the probabilites separated by the lest dimensional space are closer in quantitative coordinates), their similiar energies repelling each other causes/needs time in order to create velocity/energy which then spawns a whole host of shit as they reach for a stabilization at some lesser density of infinite probability (cool-off) amongst themselves (themselves being the branching probabilities of the initial probabilities of a single point).

that and velocity, rather than motion and location, is how you move across the probability grid...

ok that's it this time, have fun!

>> No.1675206

>>1675198
I don't, (not who you were responding to) But please explain.

>> No.1675212
File: 272 KB, 408x469, ;].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675212

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HACkykFlIus

IV SEEN DE LITE1111!!!!!!!!!!111111!!!!!ELEVEN1111ONE!!

>> No.1675222

>>1675198
PLEASE ESPLAIN

>> No.1675229

>>1675198
no, you never explained why.

>> No.1675231
File: 315 KB, 950x659, color035.sJPG_950_2000_0_75_0_50_50.sJPG..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1675231

>>1675206
Let me say it again brohams.

The universe is be definition "everything"

We could create something like the universe on a computer simulation that would act like it. That doesn't make it the same thing as the universe. It's a creation of us, actors within the universe.

Is our observable universe just one of those simulation I described? I dunno, it's impossible to tell. But it makes no fucking difference because to make a matrix you have to have a primordial source of those simulations, if we are using this line of logic.

See? It's not that hard guys.

>> No.1675233

>>1675231
>to make a matrix you have to have a primordial source of those simulations
Listen to me carefully.

I understand the above and still don't know what your point is.

>> No.1675237

>>1675231
me either haha
wtfamireading.jpg

>> No.1675238

>>1675233
Then that is your intellectual failing and also a testament to my laziness.

>> No.1675244

>>1672910
Depends of the definition of "the universe". If "the universe" is our current universe: No. Since the computer is then part of the universe too, it too has to be simulated. And since the whole computing power would have to be used to simulate the computer simulating the universe, there would be nothing left for the actual simulation of the universe.

If you mean a different universe: Yes, and it has been done many times already. A universe is "the everything", so it is just a closed container with rules and nothing ninside of that container may interact with the outside. Otherwise the outside would again belong to the universe. You may want to take a look at the game of life. That is a simple universe in a nutshell and runs as a Java Applet in your browser. Not bad, eh?

>> No.1675250

>>1675244
If you are interested in knowing what the game of life is, who invented it or just want to play it, you can find it here:
http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html

>> No.1675256

>>1675244
fractals
do you know them?
if you wanted the computer simulating the universe simulating our universe and wanted to say the computer simulating the universe is also simulating the universe simulating the universe simulating the universe then your point is like a chick with no ass, you aint got shit.

if thats your point then its a horrible one.
i really hope that isnt your point.

>> No.1675257

>>1675212
No mention of Turing's faggotry

>> No.1675258

>>1675257
didnt watch long enough then

>> No.1675261

>>1675257
NVM, there it is

>> No.1675264

>>1675127
that's general relativity you are talking about which is about gravity and the bodies that gravity works on and comes from...
I was talking about SPECIAL relativity which is about our relationship to the speed of light and states "the laws of physics are the same for things in uniform motion" which basically means speed shapes your reality and your science.

Everytime I come to sci more than 90% of the users don't know relativity beyond the word let alone that it comes in the general and special kind. This is partly why I get so upset with /sci/ and its trolling by varing degrees of intellect.

>> No.1675266

We could create a simulation of life inside a computer, but what happens when our simulations make their own simulations to discover the meaning of life?
Then we're screwed my scientific friends, screwed.

>> No.1675268

>>1675256
Yes, that's a point. What you are meaning by fractals is in fact recursion. That is the reason why you cannot simulate this universe inside of this universe. Otherwise it might be possible in an infinite amount of time, but since the infinite amount of steps also has to be simulated and you end up trying to fit a problem with an aleph-1 complexity in an aleph-0 system.
Did you even read the post you are referring to?

>> No.1675270

>>1675266
how are we screwed?
we haven't found our creators yet, why would they?
if they did some how figure out a way to contact us we could learn from them and find our own way up

>> No.1675271

>>1675264
You are correct that I don't know the difference between special and general relativity.

So how was what I was describing general relativity?

>> No.1675273

>>1675266
lol, in that case of recursive simulations you are still limited by entropy and conservation. Each simulation is limited by the resources of it's parent reality, so, that means your capacity to do calculations becomes more and more impaired as the simulations become more nested and virtualized.

Now you're playing with science!

>> No.1675278

hes saying there's only ONE universe, no matter how many simulations were or are to be created.

>> No.1675279

>>1675271
with the movement of celestial bodies moving away from us which says nothing about the uniformity or the lack thereof.

>> No.1675280

I thought the spirit of science was skepticism and investigation. This thread is proof that like any other group of ideology there is an army of fanboys, unwilling to engage in their own rational for unwillingness to compromise their personal world view,

>> No.1675286

>>1675280
an this ladies and gentlemen is the case of "generalized" relativity where you all get generalized relative to the mass of his ego.

>> No.1675289

>>1675279
I'm not sure if you are
>>1675116
but my original statement was
>How do we know that everything in our universe isn't traveling near the speed of light?
Which I am assuming is stupid because there would be nothing to measure it against.

>> No.1675292

>>1675289
ok, lol, I keep thinking that you are implying we can know because of
>scratch that
my faults entirely, I see exactly what you are saying now.