Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sean Mirrsen]

Actually, it's so ridiculously complex that you are unlikely to ever get a precise scan of it. To determine which signal goes down which synapse, a neuron's chemistry must be analyzed in addition to its internal structure, and then whatever is stored of the DNA in it is likely also taking effect. You'll basically be analyzing the whole brain down to a molecular level to get a chance at simulating its processes. And then there's the whole soul thing, which may or may not act as a supplementary data storage that also affects it.

Btw, how is determining the impulse of something a problem when the something's speed is a constant, and the mass equals the "energy mass" (or velocity mass) of it? I get the feeling something's slightly wrong in not being able to overcome the uncertainty with a precise calculation of position on a photon with a precisely known energy travelling through space. But that's just me, as always. I'm applying "generic" mass*velocity terms to something as esoteric as the impulse of a waveform. (and probably disregarding GR or SR somewhere in the process again )

[eerr]

psh "handwaves with quantum computer"


We aint never talk about hardware requirements or true ability to read/write data.
We're entirely theoretical.

So that if you knew everylast piece of data, you can easily learn the one true answer of what will happen. Even if that data happens to record part of your own head.

Your own head would be already accounted for, though that aspect might not make much sense.

[Sean Mirrsen]

This is where we go into a paradox/conflict. In order to obtain information on your head, which is presumably occupied with the calculations, the QC would need to ascertain the future of itself. In order to detail how your head will think in the next several minutes when it gives you the answer, the computer will have to perform a recursive calculation - that is, in order to proceed with the calculation, the calculation must be finished. Partway through the first reiteration, it'll come upon the problem again - and start another cycle. Etc, etc, until it implodes into a quantum singularity.

[eerr]

This is where we go into a paradox/conflict. In order to obtain information on your head, which is presumably occupied with the calculations, the QC would need to ascertain the future of itself. In order to detail how your head will think in the next several minutes when it gives you the answer, the computer will have to perform a recursive calculation - that is, in order to proceed with the calculation, the calculation must be finished. Partway through the first reiteration, it'll come upon the problem again - and start another cycle. Etc, etc, until it implodes into a quantum singularity.

Don't be silly, this is assuming you use a computer that never needs to measure itself.
It might measure you though.

[Micro102]

if you know how every atom, wave of energy, electron, works, then you can predict what someone will think. Even if it's what we are thinking right now

It's not a paradox, it's just hard to do.

And trying to predict the future with a machine is impossible, because the machine will have to take everything it does into account, so the more it calculates what it is doing, the more it does, and the more it calculates. Until it uses up all its CPU and cant calculate anything else.

[Earthquake Damage]

A simulator must be able to hold the simulation.  That is, it must have at least as much information capacity (or whatever you want to call it) as the thing it simulates (the simplest possible simulator being, of course, the simulation itself i.e. our universe).  In our universe, that requires more energy.  We don't know what sort of universe the "Our Universe" simulator might run in, so let's not try to describe it except to say that it's probably more complex than ours (in terms of the natural laws that govern it).

As for this "but the simulator has to simulate itself" nonsense...  No, it doesn't.  To simulate our universe, it's pretty obvious our universe can't contain the simulator.  Hell, physics engines (or whatever you want to call the likes of Havok) simulate simplified virtual worlds without having to simulate themselves.  Any simulator running our universe would have to be doing likewise.

On another note, since we know of no other universes, and we're pretty sure there's no way to observe other universes from within our own anyway, this universe simulator concept is of no practical use.  If you're trying to say that we can't simulate anything complex (e.g. the human brain) in our universe to such a degree as to make useful predictions (on account of not being able to simulate everything and/or the simulator itself), you're being ridiculous.  It may be unfeasible (hell if I know), but it's certainly possible.

[Micro102]

No, a brain is completely possible to predict. But the universe is not because the machine would also have to simulate itself to be able to simulate the future, it would have to simulate the energy waves it gives off, what we would think when we look at the results, and every effect it has on the universe.

[Neruz]

Sean, a complete rat brain has already been simulated, down to every single neuron and connection. I believe they're looking to upgrade to a cat brain next.

And the brain is not a CPU, computers run on Binary logic, brains most certainly do not. Neruones do not turn on and off with electrical current, instead thought processes are dictated by the connections the neurones make, as well as where the electrical current goes; a far more complicated base system than binary.


If the brain was just a CPU, we'd already be able to make artificial brains. We can already make computers that have far more 'power' than the brain.

[Earthquake Damage]

But the universe is not because the machine would also have to simulate itself to be able to simulate the future

See here:

To simulate our universe, it's pretty obvious our universe can't contain the simulator.

A separate universe (i.e. one that is neither affected by nor affects our own) could contain a simulator that simulates our own.  This is not difficult to grasp.

On a different note...

Sean, a complete rat brain has already been simulated, down to every single neuron and connection. I believe they're looking to upgrade to a cat brain next.

Seriously?  That's pretty awesome.  I had no idea we'd gotten that far.

[Neruz]

I think there's some confusion here as to what a Quantum Computer actually is; a Quantum Computer is a computer that can evaluate all possible states at the same time. Thus no matter what the calculation, it always takes exactly one 'cycle' to determine the answer, if the answer is possible.

[winner]

it would be perfectly possible to simulate a universe in it's self you'd just have to ignore all the things that don't matter and only add them in when they do.

[Micro102]

EVERYTHING MATTERS, ignoring one thing will have a slight change that will avalanche into a big one.

And i never said that the brain is a CPU, i was talking about the machine that predicts the future.

And I doubt other universes actually exist.

[Neruz]

EVERYTHING MATTERS, ignoring one thing will have a slight change that will avalanche into a big one.

Not neccessarily. It's possible, and it's impossible to work out what changes can be ignored without meaningfully impacting the whole without actually changing things and seeing what happens, but not all changes will have a meaningful impact.


For example, lets say we simulate one star in a galaxy outside of our light cone in a different location. That will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on humankind up to the present time.

[Micro102]

if everything started with the big bang, then the farthest star will have an impact on humanity, energy from everywhere is constantly entering and exiting our solar system.

[Neruz]

Actually that's the point to the 'outside our light cone' part. Nothing outside our light cone can affect us, standard relativity.

No energy originating outside our light cone has touched this planet. And if we choose a star that is not only outside our light cone but is receeding from us at faster than light speed due to spatial expansion, then it will never enter out light cone and thus will never affect us.