Java-Gaming.org Hi !
Featured games (83)
games approved by the League of Dukes
Games in Showcase (522)
Games in Android Showcase (127)
games submitted by our members
Games in WIP (589)
games currently in development
News: Read the Java Gaming Resources, or peek at the official Java tutorials
 
    Home     Help   Search   Login   Register   
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
  ignore  |  Print  
  Is our Universe Simulatable?  (Read 8316 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Offline ags1

JGO Wizard


Medals: 72
Projects: 3
Exp: 5 years


Make code not war!


« Reply #120 - Posted 2014-05-13 05:34:04 »

All scientific theories are "just models"... Leaving theory aside, there is plenty of experimental data showing the quantum behavior of atoms, molecules and smaller particles. Even when QM is disproved, future theory (and other models like simulations) will still need to be consistent with all the experimental evidence showing quantum behavior.

Offline ctomni231

JGO Wizard


Medals: 99
Projects: 1
Exp: 7 years


Not a glitch. Just have a lil' pixelexia...


« Reply #121 - Posted 2014-05-13 09:03:34 »

Honestly, as much as I love quantum physics, it truly is amazing how systems that are random and out of place find ways to mimic structure overtime. The fact is that when everything created has this nature, it is incredibly difficult to grasp it. Honestly, this whole thread is just theoretical.

We could in fact be living in a simulation. We could figure out that our conscious can be quantified and we are not special. There is just no way of knowing this due to our current Newtonian system covering only a subset of the way things work. We just don't have a real basis... And regardless of what we say, the fact is that even if we could, it is not something we would be able to comprehend.

Offline Roquen
« Reply #122 - Posted 2014-05-13 11:30:37 »

@ags1: I'm not saying otherwise.  Regardless of the future predictive power of QM that does not imply that the universe works in a quantum mechanical way.
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline Oskuro

JGO Knight


Medals: 40
Exp: 6 years


Coding in Style


« Reply #123 - Posted 2014-05-15 11:53:18 »

Some SMBC musings on the topic:


And I'm not pasting the next one because it's huge, but... Funny too, dear subroutines.

 Grin

Offline Drenius
« Reply #124 - Posted 2014-05-15 16:49:02 »

The second one actually shows an important concept.
If we -ignoring all the problems of computation, space, definitions themselves- can "simulate" our universe this would also include the simulator itself.
Best problem explanation for this forum is probably a StackOverflowException.
Offline matheus23

JGO Kernel


Medals: 113
Projects: 3


You think about my Avatar right now!


« Reply #125 - Posted 2014-05-16 12:19:51 »

The second one actually shows an important concept.
If we -ignoring all the problems of computation, space, definitions themselves- can "simulate" our universe this would also include the simulator itself.
Best problem explanation for this forum is probably a StackOverflowException.

This came up already, actually:

Logically, you can't simulate the universe.
If you managed to make a simulator, then the universe would be different - it'd have the simulator in it. You'd have to simulate the universe with the simulator in it simulating the universe which had in it the simulator simulating the simulator simulating the universe... and so on ad infinitum...

See my:
    My development Blog:     | Or look at my RPG | Or simply my coding
http://matheusdev.tumblr.comRuins of Revenge  |      On Github
Offline Drenius
« Reply #126 - Posted 2014-05-16 22:18:38 »

Thanks, was honestly too lazy to read the whole thread again.
Offline Roquen
« Reply #127 - Posted 2014-07-02 07:50:59 »

http://on-demand.gputechconf.com/gtc/2014/presentations/S4347-conquering-titan-supercomputer-milky-way-simulation.pdf

(EDIT: Note the bit about space filling curves)
Offline matheus23

JGO Kernel


Medals: 113
Projects: 3


You think about my Avatar right now!


« Reply #128 - Posted 2014-07-20 19:09:59 »

Related videos from veritasium:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUDqI9PJpc8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMb00lz-IfE

Can somebody with a scientific background verify the correctness of the information in that video?

See my:
    My development Blog:     | Or look at my RPG | Or simply my coding
http://matheusdev.tumblr.comRuins of Revenge  |      On Github
Offline Roquen
« Reply #129 - Posted 2014-08-02 19:13:22 »

Apparently NASA has some scientists that are either smoking crack or have proved that basic physics is wrong (the former seems more likely): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_plasma_thruster
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline Victor7

Senior Newbie


Exp: 1 year



« Reply #130 - Posted 2014-08-02 21:08:09 »

Physics student giving opinions here  Wink

Physical rules are written in equations that depends strongly on initial conditions of the system. In classical physics (ie, without quantum mechanics) if you know the initial position and speed of every atom in the universe, that allow you to simulate our universe completely. However, we have two problems:

- Our precision is limited by measurement. I cannot say that this object has coordinate 2 in X axis. It can be on 2.00000 +- 0.00001 position, or even in 2.0000000000 +- 0.0000000001. But that means that our object is somewhere betwen 1.9999999999 and 2.0000000001. There's infinite numbers between that values, so I can't determine the initial position.

- Even if I could manage to obtain the exact initial position of every particle in the universe, remember I left quatum mechanics. If I consider them, then Heisenberg's principle says that it's impossible to know position and speed at the same time.

Of course, I can select random values for initial positions, but that would generate another different universe. To simulate THIS universe I need that positions. And I can't obtain them.

@Roquen I don't see a violation of basic physics in that link. Casimir effect is a well-known quantum effect and it has been proved in labs a lot of times.
I don't know if it's useful to build rockets, maybe it isn't. But in principle I can't see wrong physics there =)
EDIT: After a deeper research about the experiment, I've confirmed that it violates some conservation laws, so probably the experiment by White has a kind of experimental error.
Offline gouessej
« Reply #131 - Posted 2014-08-02 21:19:13 »

Short answer: no. You would need at least enough room to store the whole universe a second time to simulate it perfectly. Sorry for my lack of references, I don't remember who explained it the very first time in the history. Drenius and SimonH already explained that a bit better than me.

Offline Sickan

Senior Devvie


Medals: 9



« Reply #132 - Posted 2014-08-02 21:23:50 »

Short answer: no. You would need at least enough room to store the whole universe a second time to simulate it perfectly. Sorry for my lack of references, I don't remember who explained it the very first time in the history. Drenius and SimonH already explained that a bit better than me.
Now I don't know very much about this topic, but what about compression?
Offline ags1

JGO Wizard


Medals: 72
Projects: 3
Exp: 5 years


Make code not war!


« Reply #133 - Posted 2014-08-02 22:07:22 »

Everyone's mind is a simulation of the universe, with drastic simplifications like color, sound and texture used to simplify the computation to manageable levels.

Offline gouessej
« Reply #134 - Posted 2014-08-02 22:56:17 »

Short answer: no. You would need at least enough room to store the whole universe a second time to simulate it perfectly. Sorry for my lack of references, I don't remember who explained it the very first time in the history. Drenius and SimonH already explained that a bit better than me.
Now I don't know very much about this topic, but what about compression?
The universe can only contain itself, there is just enough room for a single one. If you compress your "copy", it won't change anything because there isn't enough room for 1 universe + 0.000000000000001 universe (your compressed universe). At a certain time, you need the whole uncompressed copy according to Norbert Wiener and Lorenz (see the metaphor of the butterfly: "Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil Set off a Tornado in Texas?"), some "small" causes can have "big" effects (see Chaos Theory).

You can make a manageable simulation by using a pseudo-isolated simplified part of the universe but it is less faithful to the reality. I assume this is what ags1 meant, am I completely wrong?

Tons of things have been written about predictability, especially by Cauchy, Laplace, Poincaré, Lipschitz, Lyapounov, Von Neumann, ...

Offline Slyth2727
« Reply #135 - Posted 2014-08-03 04:33:44 »

You know, I'm impressed that this topic is still going.

Was I before Chuang Tzu who dreamt about being a butterfly, or am I now a butterfly who dreams about being Chuang Tzu?
Offline matheus23

JGO Kernel


Medals: 113
Projects: 3


You think about my Avatar right now!


« Reply #136 - Posted 2014-08-03 08:24:03 »

You know, I'm impressed that this topic is still going.

It's just _really_ interesting. (At least for me)

Short answer: no. You would need at least enough room to store the whole universe a second time to simulate it perfectly. Sorry for my lack of references, I don't remember who explained it the very first time in the history. Drenius and SimonH already explained that a bit better than me.

Yes, Drenius and SimonH already explained. And when I first created the Topic, I didn't have the simulation of our instance of our universe in mind, but the simulation of a universe with the same rules as ours (but it can have other initial conditions).

My question in my mind that seems like can't yet be answered is: Is our universe deterministic? Do the same initial conditions result in the same universe?

See my:
    My development Blog:     | Or look at my RPG | Or simply my coding
http://matheusdev.tumblr.comRuins of Revenge  |      On Github
Offline Victor7

Senior Newbie


Exp: 1 year



« Reply #137 - Posted 2014-08-03 09:43:56 »

Quote
My question in my mind that seems like can't yet be answered is: Is our universe deterministic? Do the same initial conditions result in the same universe?

Yes, but the problem is that we cannot calculate that initial conditions. Read my previous post Cheesy
Offline matheus23

JGO Kernel


Medals: 113
Projects: 3


You think about my Avatar right now!


« Reply #138 - Posted 2014-08-03 10:49:34 »

Quote
My question in my mind that seems like can't yet be answered is: Is our universe deterministic? Do the same initial conditions result in the same universe?

Yes, but the problem is that we cannot calculate that initial conditions. Read my previous post Cheesy

Yes, but I don't want to calculate the initial conditions. Read my previous post Cheesy

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?

See my:
    My development Blog:     | Or look at my RPG | Or simply my coding
http://matheusdev.tumblr.comRuins of Revenge  |      On Github
Offline Roquen
« Reply #139 - Posted 2014-08-03 10:57:54 »

My question in my mind that seems like can't yet be answered is: Is our universe deterministic? Do the same initial conditions result in the same universe?
Nobody can answer these two questions.  Until we have a perfect model it's just guessing.  Even then the answers will probably be unknowable. It seems to me that it's more likely that the universe is deterministic but it's a too depressing a thought to think about too much.

Given that so many of the observed constants are required for life (as we know it) I wonder if perhaps the size of the universe is important..in that any small change in it would cause nothing to work as it does.
Offline Roquen
« Reply #140 - Posted 2014-08-03 11:59:14 »

I don't see a violation of basic physics in that link. Casimir effect is a well-known quantum effect and it has been proved in labs a lot of times.  I don't know if it's useful to build rockets, maybe it isn't. But in principle I can't see wrong physics there =)
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
Offline Victor7

Senior Newbie


Exp: 1 year



« Reply #141 - Posted 2014-08-03 13:32:30 »

Quote
So I did a web-search to see what someone with a real clue might have to say

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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

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?

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.  Smiley

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/
Offline Drenius
« Reply #142 - Posted 2014-08-03 14:52:45 »

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?
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.
Offline Roquen
« Reply #143 - Posted 2014-08-05 07:12:04 »

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.
Offline ags1

JGO Wizard


Medals: 72
Projects: 3
Exp: 5 years


Make code not war!


« Reply #144 - Posted 2014-08-05 10:12:58 »

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!

Offline matheus23

JGO Kernel


Medals: 113
Projects: 3


You think about my Avatar right now!


« Reply #145 - Posted 2014-08-05 10:45:13 »

So, the argument seems to be: "You can't simulate the our universe because this universe would have to contain itself and another (simulated) universe, which won't fit."

FTFY Smiley

Simulating any other universe still seems to be possible...

See my:
    My development Blog:     | Or look at my RPG | Or simply my coding
http://matheusdev.tumblr.comRuins of Revenge  |      On Github
Offline Roquen
« Reply #146 - Posted 2014-08-05 11:31:52 »

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.
Offline matheus23

JGO Kernel


Medals: 113
Projects: 3


You think about my Avatar right now!


« Reply #147 - Posted 2014-08-05 11:46:49 »

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.

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8

(Turn off noise, it's annoying)

See my:
    My development Blog:     | Or look at my RPG | Or simply my coding
http://matheusdev.tumblr.comRuins of Revenge  |      On Github
Online trollwarrior1
« Reply #148 - Posted 2014-08-05 14:48:10 »

Here is a video showing a simulated universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8
Offline Roquen
« Reply #149 - Posted 2014-08-05 15:07:51 »

Interesting.  Note the complexity of this and it's vastly simpler than my proposed example.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
  ignore  |  Print  
 
 

 

Add your game by posting it in the WIP section,
or publish it in Showcase.

The first screenshot will be displayed as a thumbnail.

xFryIx (62 views)
2014-11-13 12:34:49

digdugdiggy (41 views)
2014-11-12 21:11:50

digdugdiggy (36 views)
2014-11-12 21:10:15

digdugdiggy (30 views)
2014-11-12 21:09:33

kovacsa (53 views)
2014-11-07 19:57:14

TehJavaDev (56 views)
2014-11-03 22:04:50

BurntPizza (55 views)
2014-11-03 18:54:52

moogie (70 views)
2014-11-03 06:22:04

CopyableCougar4 (71 views)
2014-11-01 23:36:41

DarkCart (156 views)
2014-11-01 14:51:03
Understanding relations between setOrigin, setScale and setPosition in libGdx
by mbabuskov
2014-10-09 22:35:00

Definite guide to supporting multiple device resolutions on Android (2014)
by mbabuskov
2014-10-02 22:36:02

List of Learning Resources
by Longor1996
2014-08-16 10:40:00

List of Learning Resources
by SilverTiger
2014-08-05 19:33:27

Resources for WIP games
by CogWheelz
2014-08-01 16:20:17

Resources for WIP games
by CogWheelz
2014-08-01 16:19:50

List of Learning Resources
by SilverTiger
2014-07-31 16:29:50

List of Learning Resources
by SilverTiger
2014-07-31 16:26:06
java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites, and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily gaming and game production oriented community. inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the company managing the website of java‑gaming.org
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Managed by Enhanced Four Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!