My knowledge of modern physics fits in this: ( ).
So I did a web-search to see what someone with a real clue might have to say. These were posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Baez
https://plus.google.com/117663015413546257905/posts/WfFtJ8bYVya
https://plus.google.com/117663015413546257905/posts/C7vx2G85kr4
[quote]So I did a web-search to see what someone with a real clue might have to say
[/quote]
Good links. I also did a deeper research and effectively looks like the results obtained are wrong, or there’s a lot of new things in that experiment. Most sources agree that looks like first option xD
However, I want to point that forces origined by quantum vacuum (Casimir effect) is proven. This guy is using a different thing called “dynamic Casimir effect” which is not completely proven by now I think. You can take a look in wikipedia:
[quote]What do you mean by “that initial conditions”? The initial conditions of our universe? I don’t want to.
Knowing that we can simulate a universe that is (maybe) similar to ours (has the same rules) and (maybe) also has intelligent life like ours opens new possibilities for arguing in a philosophical way to the question: “What is love life?” Cheesy
It means we could create life just like ours in a computer. It makes defining life and killing much harder. Is turning of the simulating computer killing/murder?
[/quote]
I meant initial conditions of our universe, yes.
It’s difficult to simulate a “similar” universe like ours, I think. Result diverge from initial conditions so from initial conditions close to our universe we can find a very different one.
But, yes, if you want to design a random universe, it’s like create a new map in Minecraft: give initial conditions (seed) and run the software, you’ll get a new universe. 
Ah, I forgot last time… There’s a simulation of the universe formation, it’s called project Illustris. The objective was determine how galaxies are formed and dark matter distribution. It astonishing to see that the galaxies formed in the simulation (from different initial conditions) are very, VERY similar to the galaxies we can see in our universe.
Here is the link: http://www.illustris-project.org/
[quote]It means we could create life just like ours in a computer. It makes defining life and killing much harder. Is turning of the simulating computer killing/murder?
[/quote]
It does not create that problem, it shows just another example for it.
Life is no universal constant instance anyway, definitions for it are personal.
News flash: In an unrelated web-search I found other research by this reactionless drive person - Faster than light.
Protip: Harold “Sonny” White - don’t trust research by people that use their professional wrestling name on the paper.
Oh yeah…why I’m I posting this stuff in this topic? Because it’s an example even people and organizations which should be partial sane can come up with complete garbage.
So, the argument seems to be: “You can’t simulate the universe because this universe would have to contain itself and another (simulated) universe, which won’t fit.”
Is that true? For example, can our universe simulate a very simple universe consisting of say 1 electron and nothing else? You might say yes, eventually we could, but then… “You can’t simulate even a tiny universe, because this universe would have to contain itself and an additional (simulated) universe, which won’t fit.”
So by that line of reasoning, you can’t simulate anything at all. It explains why my sim games never seem to work They can’t fit in the universe!
FTFY
Simulating any other universe still seems to be possible…
My argument is that it’s effectively uncomputable. The system in the system argument is also valid. A simply analogy is that you can build a computer in “the game of life”. Which in turn can run it, but only at a smaller scale than itself. etc.
Here is a video showing a simulated universe.
Interesting. Note the complexity of this and it’s vastly simpler than my proposed example.
I… guess this was intentional?
Question is: Is a universe that has the same rules as ours simulatable? Though not our universe directly, but only with other initial conditions (assuming it’s deterministic right now).
Again it’s guesswork. If we find a perfect model and the size of our universe isn’t important for it work then we could perhaps simulate an insanely small version…depending on the size of the modeling elements.
Dayum so awesome.
So , you cannot simulate our universe, firstly there is simply not enough matter to do it , if you took all the matter in the universe you would not have enough to produce all the ram and components that we have on modern computers atleast. However , if you were to slow down the rate of your simulation , you may be able to simulate it. The same goes if you generalize certain things , such as the massive void or gravity , instead of using singular particles generalize it into a field in which you can manipulate with a series of verticies. If you are taking this very litterally then you must consider where you will get the power for the minecraftotron5000 , you could capture a blackhole , you could use a supernova however none of these would be very viable , capturing a blackhole is near impossible and even then the amount of power it gives out would not be enough to power you monstrous machine of minecraftery. Apart from all of this there is something you should think about , would it be better for certain humans to live in an entirely virtual environment (for instance if they had locked in syndrome) where no one got hurt , you could do whatever you want and phsyics was simply a toy at your disposal. Would it be worth sticking the entire population in a virtual reality to keep them entertained?
roughly : heisenberg forbids us to understand the fundamentals. we cannot simulate something we do not understand. :clue:
Since we’re part of the system we can’t know the real mechanic. That doesn’t imply it’s impossible to find a perfect model.
@basil_: Like any model, it will be replaced by another. It would be presumptuous to think we already found the the lowest model. So far it always turned out there was something underneath that explained the mysteries in higher level models.
yea. very true.
usually - once we create better tools we can learn/access more things. then a similar question forms: can we create tools within in a universe which could allow us to observe the universe from “outside”. exit it to see the core ?
No