I have a question for /sci/
How far away do you think we are from computers being at a point we can create our own universes in them with the detail, scale and AI on the same scale as our own?
Do you think it will ever be possible?
you would need a computer larger than the size of the universe
>>8098192
But what about quantum computers?
Such a thing is provably impossible.
>>8098185
Other than scale we've been doing that for a while now.
>>8098196
Explain, in a way a dumbfuck like me can understand
>>8098185
Dude, we can't even simulate classical 3-body problems 100% accurately.
>>8098201
So there is no hope whatsoever?
>>8098185
It's never going to happen.
>>8098209
And a plane will never fly for more than 50 meters
>>8098202
Take a few physics classes and learn how a computer works and I think you'll see how futile it is pretty quick.
>>8098212
But what about this
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-six-state-magnetic-memory.html#jCp
>Computers are often described with "ones and zeros," referring to their binary nature: each memory element stores data in two states. But there is no fundamental reason why there should be just two. In a new study, researchers have designed a magnetic element that has six stable magnetic states, which paves the way toward realizing a six-state magnetic memory element.
>>8098214
More states requires more complexity, this isn't my area but I've been told the ideal base for trade-off with complexity is e, meaning 3 would be slightly better than 2 but more is a waste.
More importantly, it doesn't change anything about computation theory. Quantum computation obviously brings something new ontop of classical, and will help with our ability to simulate the real world, but it's not going to make such a leap that we can start simulating macro-scale objects.
>>8098224
>but it's not going to make such a leap that we can start simulating macro-scale objects.
But docent "quantum" mean not just 3-6, but infinite? meaning there should be no limit to what you can make it do
>>8098226
Separate concept. Quantum systems can be binary, ternary, or other bases.
>>8098235
>Separate concept.
Not really, im talking about superpositioning them infinitely
>>8098247
Yes, superposition and base are separate concepts. The analog to a binary bit is a qubit. The analog to a ternary trit is a qutrit. Base (perhaps the wrong word in quantum, dunno) = number of independent non-superposition states.
>>8098214
>>8098224
>>8098226
The whole reason our deterministic modern computers are digital and binary is because
1) binary signals are extremely noise-tolerant and easy to store/propagate
2) binary systems are easy to design
3) binary can theoretically store any other base
4) although binary can't store a continuous value, since all analog machines are physical, and matter is quantized on the order of 10^23 constituent parts for macroscopic objects, in some sense even analog devices are digital. Moreover, numbers on the order of 10^23 are easy to represent with a modest number of bits.
5) We can process binary signals in ways not available for analog signals.
(history note: some early vacuum tube logic was ternary)
Anyway, all you've done is slightly increase the data density of your computer, by an order magnitude or two. This still doesn't get at underlying issues with numeric calculations needed to simulate a universe.
Let's say you introduce quantum computers. These are non-deterministic devices, in the sense that any one experiment's outcome cannot be predicted beyond knowing what the odds of the outcomes are. You need to run their 'programs' several times before you can explore the results because these machines are necessarily probabilistic.
That being said, technically there is nothing a quantum computer can do that a deterministic computer can't. Quantum computers just happen to solve certain problems faster than traditional computers. But in no form or fashion will a quantum computer replace deterministic computers. At best they will be like graphics card coprocessor addons that solve specific math problems.
What quantum computers could potentially buy us is a more direct way to simulate atoms, because they already are manipulating all the relevant features, but by the point you've turned your machine into the universe you are trying to simulate.
I guess one way to think of it is a person's brain trying to conceive of
>>8098194
Anon the universe is a quantum computer that's been in creation for billions of years
We can't hope to do the same with a computer the size of a building that we made during 20 years
