Not if you keep accidentally burning down your house.

Nor problem-o ... a true "Master of Entropy" would be able to easily unburn it...

 

View attachment 203872

Tarski's undefinability theorem

When people question their own reality, they can reach extreme conclusions:

​

 

Two important points:

• The universe can't be simulated
• Time is not reversible

I always found it interesting that a Doctorate in Physics is actually titled on the parchment, Doctor of Philosophy in Physics. A complete oxymoron for most of the physicists with a Doctorate that I've known.

Philosophy, by its first or primary definition is the study of knowledge and reason, right or wrong. Most physicists have some how evolved the definition of their own discipline to be the study of and expansion of facts as they see them. They do this while also the acknowledging what is accepted as fact one day can be disavowed the next. The earth is neither flat or the center of the universe.

What is fact? "The universe can't be simulated" or "today we don't have the knowledge or tools to simulate the universe?" There are theoretical physicists that believe the only reason we can't reverse chaos is because the amount of computing power required doesn't exist, as of yet. Recently saw just this on "Cosmos."

There are also theoretical physicists that hypothesize the Big Crunch will be a period of time reversal. If the theory of everything or unified field theory is true then the universal equation to explain "the universe" that the theory requires would demand time reversal. Either that or the balance inherent in an equation's equal sign "=" would have to be redefined to agree with new definitions of logic and logical statements.

Bottom line, "does what we know and can explain today also define what is possible tomorrow?" These given statements about the universe and time are also definitive statements of what is and isn't possible. Funny though that the same people making these statements admit our understanding of the universe is directly tied to our understanding of gravity and they can't define the nature of either as they willfully state what is and isn't possible. JMO but it all seems like a good example for the definition of arrogance.

 

Quantum mechanics has been telling us that for 100 years. There's no such thing as 100% accuracy; it's an impossible idea, like greater-than-unity energy mechanisms. So, what does that have to do with simulations?

Was thinking the same thing. Seems to be some confusion between simulation and emulation. The lack of perfection is a principle of simulation. Emulating is replicating. Heisenberg uncertainty principle for one explained why there is no 100% accuracy.

 

Heisenberg uncertainty principle for one explained why there is no 100% accuracy.

That's one of the points of the article. The very nature of quantum mechanics makes it improbable for the exact same event to happen twice, even under the exact same circumstances.

 

That's one of the points of the article. The very nature of quantum mechanics makes it improbable for the exact same event to happen twice, even under the exact same circumstances.

I'm no physicist, theoretical or otherwise but I don't see any conflicts about the exact replication of an event. Simulation doesn't require it unlike emulation. Time reversal, if possible, wouldn't be a replication either. It would be the opposite of the original event(s). Neither condition requires exact or perfection. Also, this stuff is up there with spooky action at a distance on the weird scale.

 

Neither condition requires exact or perfection.

Oh, yes it does ... especially in chaotic systems, in which a minuscule deviation in the present makes a huge impact over time.

Also, this stuff is up there with spooky action at a distance on the weird scale.

Quite true.

 

I'm no physicist, theoretical or otherwise but I don't see any conflicts about the exact replication of an event. Simulation doesn't require it unlike emulation. Time reversal, if possible, wouldn't be a replication either. It would be the opposite of the original event(s). Neither condition requires exact or perfection. Also, this stuff is up there with spooky action at a distance on the weird scale.

Exact is the word because it implies infinity or at least Planck level precision. Even identical twins are not exactly alike. How can you simulation the infinite within a physical universe of limits to information transfer or even build a Star Trek transporter.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...sible-technology-from-star-trek/#79a0dee14be1

But most shockingly, the transporter of Star Trek seems to be one invention that’s forever beyond our reach, much to the chagrin of world travelers, would-be bank robbers and forbidden Lotharios everywhere. Sure, if you have a quantum particle on one side of a thin barrier, there's a finite-but-non-zero chance it will wind up on the other side, even if it doesn't have enough energy to get there. But for even a small collection of atoms, the probability of "tunneling" in that sense is so exponentially small, you could have every human that's ever lived wait the entire age of the Universe and never have a single one move as much as a micron.

Think about the difference between a living human and a corpse of a human: there are no particles that are necessarily different, it’s simply the way those particles are positioned and moving in that configuration. But physics won't even let you know those two pieces of information at the same time, much less reproduce them.

You see, there’s an inherent uncertainty between momentum and position for every particle, requiring that if you know one of those traits to a certain degree of precision, the other one becomes inherently uncertain so that the product of the two is always finite and non-zero. Lawrence Krauss, in his book The Physics of Star Trek, correctly identifies that one would need some type of hypothetical “Heisenberg Compensator” to account for this, which seems to violate the fundamental rules of quantum mechanics. When the Star Trek creators came up with the idea of Heisenberg Compensators, they were asked how they worked. Their response? "They work very well, thank you." Unfortunately, this is one case where no matter how far technology advances, it will always be bound by the laws of nature.

 

How can you simulation the infinite within a physical universe of limits to information transfer or even build a Star Trek transporter.

You're redefining what a simulation is:

""A simulation is an approximate imitation of the operation of a process or system; that represents its operation over time.""

A simulation by definition is not exact.

""So what’s the difference between a simulator and an emulator? A simulator program in a computer is a virtual environment that models real-world applications (e.g. driving, designing) and theoretical concepts (e.g. astronomy, statistics, weather forecasting). An emulator, on the other hand, is hardware or software that allows computer hardware to function exactly the way a certain hardware/software that is being emulated would.""

Of course this is assuming the only way to simulate the universe is with a computer model. What other method of simulating the universe currently exists?

EDIT: My point of there being no conflict with "exact" is since a simulation by definition isn't exact it can't conflict with what is or expected to be exact. It would be disingenuous at best to define simulation as one thing and then fault it for not being something other then what it's defined to be. That would be a conflict because it would violate its defined nature. Taxonomy at work.

 

Great. I can then simulation the universe with one coin flip, two, three. What approximation/precision of simulation is sufficient to solve a random Three-body_problem precisely across the galaxy?

That is, obtaining a value of meaningful precision requires so many terms that this solution is of little practical use. Indeed, in 1930, David Beloriszky calculated that if Sundman's series were to be used for astronomical observations, then the computations would involve at least 10^8000000 terms.

 

Great. I can then simulation the universe with one coin flip, two, three. What approximation/precision of simulation is sufficient to solve a random Three-body_problem precisely across the galaxy?

Those "special" cases where a solution CAN be found are interesting though. Create the right initial conditions and you can accurately plot their trajectories throughout time. But then again, can we really actually do that? There's got to be some quantum weirdness thing preventing that from being truly possible.

 

There's got to be some quantum weirdness thing preventing that from being truly possible.

And that's what the original article in the first post is all about...

 

Dare I say such a thing(triple question marks HaHa)Heisenberg uncertainty principle is wrong, and quantum mechanics is at least incomplete.

 

And that's what the original article in the first post is all about...

Dang it, hold on...I think I left my beer on the tailgate too...

 

Heisenberg uncertainty principle is wrong

I'd very much like to hear your (or from a respectable source) arguments on that.

quantum mechanics is at least incomplete.

no argument there from me...

 

Great. I can then simulation the universe with one coin flip, two, three. What approximation/precision of simulation is sufficient to solve a random Three-body_problem precisely across the galaxy?

You're question implies simulations have a power they don' have. Simulations aren't pseudo fortune telling devices. They don't solve anything. If they did they would be emulators and I believe we would start small with their uses. Something like predicting the track of a hurricane so we would know where it will make landfall beforehand. How can you simulate anything with coin flips? They're a 50-50 proposition. Evidence that this is a true statement is derived by data that comes from the more times you flip a coin. Although this proves out in a simulation a simulation is never used to predict just one or the next coin flip.

This is why we can simulate the universe but can't emulate the universe. Yet anyway.

 

Dare I say such a thing(triple question marks HaHa)Heisenberg uncertainty principle is wrong, and quantum mechanics is at least incomplete.

QM is incomplete by its own definition, as there is no gravity in QM. As for the uncertainty principle, it can't be wrong as it is a mathematical theorem of non-commuting operators. In classical physics, we model a particle's parameters of motion -- such as position, momentum, kinetic energy, angular momentum, etc. -- with mathematical operators. These operators track the state of the parameter in each respective state-space, and in classical physics these operators commute: \[ AB = BA \] This means that first measuring a particle's position (A) and then its momentum (B) is exactly equivalent to first measuring its momentum and then its position.

However, in quantum states-spaces, we found that some of these operators don't commute: \[ AB - BA \ne 0 \] This means that the order (including simultaneously) we perform our measurements will affect the outcome. This isn't just a physical fact, it's a mathematical fact (and hence not open for debate). Working out the resulting math, Heisenberg formulated his infamous UP.

One might hope to do away with uncertainty by suggesting that quantum state-space is not a suitable physical paradigm, that some other type of physics might be more accurate and perfectly certain. But perfect certainty is the classical paradigm, and it is demonstrably wrong. Furthermore, it's been shown that any alternative physics that can be at least as accurate as QM will also include uncertainty. It's the nature of the beast.

We see uncertainty rearing its ugly head in "regular land", too. We know the exact frequency of a sine wave only if we have infinite time to measure it. The less time we measure it, the more uncertainty we have about its frequency; in the limit, with zero measurement time, we have zero certainty about its frequency. Likewise, we know the exact time of a Dirac impulse only if we have infinite bandwidth to measure all of its frequencies. The less bandwidth we have, the more uncertain we are about its timing; in the limit, when we have zero bandwidth, we have zero certainty about its time duration.

The uncertainty principle is a property of the universe; we can't hand-wave it away.

 

This means that the order (including simultaneously) we perform our measurements will affect the outcome.

Entanglement and Superposition = Schrodinger's cat experiment and what takes this to the weird. The cat is both alive and dead until the box is opened and certainty is known.

Another philosophical difference of opinion in physics. When does the act of flipping a coin begin and the result determined? When the coin is flipped or when the decision is made to flip a coin?

What's interesting about these ideas is these questions existed long before anyone ever heard of quantum physics. Often attributed to Aristotle, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make any noise?" Aristotle argued that no it doesn't. Science argues it does since it's the result of physical properties. Record it as proof? Aristotle would argue that recording it is nothing but delayed hearing. The device needed to record is a man made input. Schrodinger's cat an Aristotle's tree are the same argument or experiment of entanglement and superposition.

 

ever since Heisenberg wrote down that irritating formula knowing exactly how precise a measurement you can obtain is very important
Instead of taking one large measurement of a particle (which disrupts the system and yields a ton of uncertainty)take a bunch of small measurements in an attempt to interact with the system as little as possible. Then stack those measurements together.
You can get a more accurate measurement of your particle test subject than the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows.

 

Science argues it does...

Really? I was under the impression that "noise" (in the audible sense) is something interpreted by one's brain.

It ain't noise till you hear it.