If you knew all the laws of the universe and how matter works on the most fundamental level, and had knowledge about the exact conditions at the start of the universe, could you "calculate" the future by simulating the universe from the start?
The problem of there not being enough storage for all the data points because the number of smallest elements needed to be simulated is as many as in the real universe, which means true simulation would be impossible. But you could work around that if you could acurately enough predict how a system of elements (say billions) will act with just a few data points, the same way you could predict how a cell works without mapping out every single atom in it.
If you could calculate the future, how would that work if you decide to change whatever future you see in the simulation? What future would you see yourself simulate, in the simulation?
>>8013555
>could you "calculate" the future by simulating the universe from the start?
No.
Even in a deterministic universe (and this ISN'T a deterministic universe), the three body problem would prevent you from doing this.
See also: halting problem
>>8013590
>the three body problem would prevent you from doing this
this meme needs to die
it has a well defined solution
The answer is still no, but because OP would need a machine (a simulator or whatever you want to call it) bigger than the universe itself to simulate everything in the universe.
>>8013590
>the universe is / isn't deterministic FOR SURE
>three body meme
>halting meme
fuck off reddit
>>8013555
The universe ain't deterministic. It seems to be intrinsically random on the quantum level. You can predict what will happen in the universe, and yes - run it on a smaller machine with approximations to behaviour and it will probably end up something like this did.
>>8013605
oh
then you don't need that.
What you describe is called thermodynamics.
>>8013605
Depends on your desired level of accuracy.
Given my current level of knowledge about the universe, I can reliably tell you that "shit happened".
But knowing *all* of the laws of the universe would be redundant if all you wanted was an approximation small enough to calculate in-universe.
>>8013555
No, cause you can only know with accuracy either the position or the momentum of the atom, at one time.
>>8013613
>It seems to be intrinsically random on the quantum level
Isn't it more likely that it seems random because we don't fully understand it than it being truely random in nature?
>>8013613
Nah, the universe (anecdotally) isn't random, we just haven't conclusively proven it one way or another.
Apparently independent probabilities may in fact be dependent or deterministic upon further research.
>>8013555
>knowing initial conditions
>building a machine to generate infinite energy
>gg
I guess you wouldn't need to simulate from the start of the universe if you wanted to know the future of a specific location. For earth it would be enough to have a machine that could read the exact state of every elemental particle in our entire solar system and then start the simulation from there.
>>8013555
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon
>>8013555
Yes. If you calculate the future the calculation will take into account the fact that you calculated the future so since you are made of atoms you'll be unable to not do whatever the machine says you're going to do.
t. grad phycisist
>>8013555
>What future would you see yourself simulate, in the simulation?
At perfect resolution, you'd see both outcomes.
