Is our Universe Simulatable?

Miscellaneous Topics
#1

I think the topic title says it all.
Is it possible? In the sense of like (this is based on what I heard about quantum theory) to simulate a big array of quantum volumes that react exactly like the do in our world?

I know science hasn’t yet found out everything. But do you think it is possible? :wink:

We can simulate really basic, simple universes with really simple rules: Game of Life. It’s turing complete, you can build computers inside of it. And I guess you could even create a thinking AI inside of it, too.
People have implemented the game of life inside game of life :smiley:

#2

I assume you mean with unbounded computation power and memory, otherwise the answer is obvious :wink:

Technically, there are a finite number of quantum states in a finite volume, so I believe it would be possible. (Assuming a finite universe, no multiverses, or other black magic)

Have you seen this? (Maybe it sparked this topic!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOxDb_BbXzU

#3

[quote]I assume you mean with unbounded computation power and memory, otherwise the answer is obvious
[/quote]
Maybe not the whole universe at once, but a part of it, by just knowing how the whole thing works.

#4

Maybe not the whole universe at once, but a part of it, by just knowing how the whole thing works.
[/quote]
A very, very small part, even if you were to chop space up into cubes minecraft-style, with each cube a planck length on edge, a teaspoon would contain 1.16752772 × 1099 such cubes. Multiply that by how many states there could be per cube, and you very quickly hit that memory constraint.

#5

The main problem would probably be what we can accept as a simulation of a universe and what just as one of something though.
Define when it is worth to be called ‘universe’.
(Somebody will come up with a definition, but it won’t be the only possible.)

#6

Well the thread title is “Our Universe,” so I’m guessing matheus’s original question pertains to the currently observable universe, perhaps beyond. (Beyond observable is tricky to think about though)

#7

Still. Who has to decide whats a proper representation of it.

#8

From my study of chemistry, I recall that supercomputers struggle to exactly represent one oxygen molecule. I think if you had a computer larger than the universe, you could simulate the universe :slight_smile:

#9

I’ve thought of this many times before. Think about it, if we could simulate our world we could see… into the future O.o

#10

Only if you could simulate faster than real time. That’s the kicker.

#11

There are some theorys around saying we are in a simulation right now!

#12

Reality itself is a paradox. It is self-explaining. Think about it.

#13

The universe as we experience it in ur heads is just an emulation that has an indirect relation the the “real” reality. For example, color is not a property of light, it is a label attached to light in our brain.

#14

Thats not how quantum physics works -> Probability

Not really a paradox but rather an unanswered question, why did the big bang occur, how did whatever was before came to be, why does ANYTHING exist? its not a paradox its just a question mark. Which we can never solve without information from outside the system I guess

To answer the question I think Yes, because scale is not an issue and monkeys typing Shakespeare.

#15

@Cero:
No, not the universe. Some physicists believe they have a pretty good idea of what the universe is and where it came from.
Reality. The existence of the universe requires at least one thing: Existence.
Not time or space but pure, meaningless existence. This is a paradox.

#16

That’s not what he meant. He meant why do we even exist? Whats the point to existence? Everything dies or ceases to exist at one point, so what’s the point?

Just why?

#17

@opiop: Thats more a philosophical question and although it has some connection it does not really belong here.

#18

Drenius, I was explaining what Cero said because you misread his answer.

#19

Logically, you can’t simulate the universe.
If you managed to make a simulator, then the universe would be different - it’d have the simulator in it. You’d have to simulate the universe with the simulator in it simulating the universe which had in it the simulator simulating the simulator simulating the universe… and so on ad infinitum…

#20

@opiop:
You used the word ‘die’. This would require life to be a ‘fact’ - you could also say the universe ‘dies’ - but still a ‘fact’.
I wanted to make clear that what he told still required ‘existence’ to be a fact, not a question.
(Sorry, possible still bad explained.)

@SimonH: You got it. Have a medal.