There are already working quantum computers, just not powerfull enough for that kind of simulation - yet.Source
Not possible if the universe is infinite in any sense (big or small, duration, etc.).Quantum. Computers.
Once we get steady, even little bit bigger scaled quantum computer working, we can easily, I mean easily simulate an entire universe, setting just the right balance gravity and other forces. We can even test and see some new things that it would need to have an universe, and even find them from our own universe if trying to search them at best.
Have that happening, this theory will most definitely become one of the most important ones. As in the simulated universe, assuming intellectual life takes place in there, how could those simulated beings ever know they're in simulation.
It is referred in many sources, that stable quantum computer with 300 fully entangled qubits can manipulate as many classical bits of information as there are atoms in the Universe.
As stated in gizmag article about quantum computers:
Taking that into account, this universe could be simulated in chip sized of a... chip. Just with more than 300qbits. There could even be virtual universes inside virtual universes. This should get you all geeks learning VMWARE
Source
If the simulation only sets the laws of nature right and just lets it run (many times perhaps, countless times) it will end up in universe like ours - without any work of coding. Just set the rules and let the possibilities happen. That is why it will look perfect, because it is, and not even written in that manner, just a possibility capitalizing under the set rules of nature. Works to same way that winning a lottery. If you make 15 million different rows, you have 100% chance of one of them being right (finnish lotto). With large quantum computer power, it could be very possible. There could be quadrillion times billion quadrillion universes that wouldn't be like this, but there would be scenarios where it happens like it happens here, if we make simulation based on just running it on given laws on its own.
Hell, we could even find all the needed laws by just on running simulations on all possible law sets of nature as long as we find a stable set of rules from perspective of life.
Time could be scaled any how we like. We could simulate 1 second in our universe to mean 10000000000 years in the simulated universe. This could also be true for our reality if it is simulated, and it might be we last just an hour for "higher reality" time as an universe. Today, we have high speed camera footage of almost planck lenght of time. There you can see a beam of light traveling distance of a coca cola bottle and it takes minutes, you can find that on youtube, too. Here it is presented in a ted talk (forwarded it a bit for you). You will see the actual footage in this ted talk, too. https://youtu.be/Y_9vd4HWlVA?t=1m29s
You must understand that we can simulate million years in 0,0001 second if we wish to make it that way with powerfull enough (quantum) computer. Time is experiened individually. How can we know how long a year feels for a say dog? We can literally stare 0,0001 second footage for minutes when we have enough photos taken per second as shown in the video. It really brings into this reality what is relativity of time as an experience.
This could also mean few things that pop into my mind now:
1) If the chip we or any universe is simulated at crashes, everything will disappear and we will feel nothing.
2) There might equally possibly be simulated life after death in that simulated universe (if the chip doesnt crash). The one who created it might as well added it, even if the realest of real reality wouldn't actually have that. It would be equally possible to Odin exist or not, or equally possible that what ever we believe in we see / get in afterlife, or equally possible that the maker of quantum computer just didin't code anything for afterlife. However, the last seems little less likely to me, because that would be a boring thing to do. As a coder of universe, the afterlife would be probably even more interesting thing to do.
3) This simulated universe would end the endless discussion about what was before big bang to trigger it. Simply some coder, perhaps beareded guy lying on cloud, pressed a button and it happened. It would offer an exact answer to question of how the hell is it even possible that we are here.
On top of everything, nature of quantum computer is great for simulating an universe, where you just simulate endless possibilities happening the way or another. That is exactly the nature of quantum computer, that is great for analysing mass data and simulating big scale things, simulating things that are based on so called randomness (lots of possibilities and just some happening unpredictably).
If you are interested in quantum computers study about them in youtube with keywords such as quantum computer of D-wave (the googles quantum computer). There are other makers too.
https://youtu.be/DZ2DcILZAbM?t=1m45s
Is it possible: (a) to simulate one subsection of the universe, or (b) to simulate one sufficiently similar to one such subsection of the universe perceived by us in the way it is (presumably as real, actual, objectual, substantial, etc.), such that the simulated one is sufficiently similar to the real one in that it is also acceptably able to be considered (real, actual, objectual, substantial, etc.)? I feel like the criterion for the authenticity may be an infinite regress (it becomes increasingly more fuzzy to determine the reality of one simulation as they conglomerate, or are applied onto each other as multiple functions (or an argument onto a function)). This at least I think additionally makes it likely that an infinitely-nested set of simulacra are impossible to perceive by us (from our current conceptual / relational frameworks anyway). A crude way of making the infinite regress point I just made is, you can't make the meta-level forward (it is rather retroactively / atemporally all-encompassing if anything).
Which we don't know. There are hyphothesis by known scientist and philosophist about things only coming into existance if some one aware is looking or otherwise monitoring them. As einstein thought, he doesn't know if the moon really exist when he doesn't look, but he believes so. And some one said "if a tree falls in the forest and no being is there to hear it, does it even make a sound?".
It takes advantage of superpositions and quantum entanglement. It has transistor that instead of holding one bit inside them holds quantum bit that can be any value between 1,0 or any value between them. When you have many transistors like this, you can do very complex mass data simulations compared to norman transistors who only hold either 1 or 0. There are tons of articles and material already trying to explain how quantum computer already works. Easiest start are videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhHMJCUmq28
I'm a Platonic realist so I don't agree with those Einstein quotes / suppositions you gave.
The activity of Turing Machines are just a generalization, anything that is said of them can be demonstrated by concrete processes. I had been thinking that that was true of them from the get-go of recursion theory. The Halting Problem involves a proof by contradiction, yes. So it is beyond the imagination in a way (such maneuvers are often present in classical logic and a lot of pure mathematics).
Are you referring to Hilbert's Program? Or perhaps Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory plus the Axiom of Choice?
Yes.
We are just beginning to explore biological computing and things like gene editing. You edit a gene and the rest is done by another organism. In this case the human body. The human body is comprised of many "technologies"working in concert. Much like a circuit board that has capacitors, resistors AND transistors making the yes no decisions.
A entity capable of creating the universe as a simulation would be so far beyond our comprehension. I mean, in theory, everything is a yes no decision. can the cells combine? Yes or no? Do the atoms attract. Yes or no?
We only need think about the fact that 200 years ago no one could imagine genes, much less being able to edit them or manipulate atoms. Just our solar systems is 4.5 billion years old. That entire time could be 1 year to the creators of this "simulation".
Thinking of creating a universe limiting it to our understanding of computing is like comparing a child that finally understands 1+1=2 and a college student understanding calculus and geometry only on a much grander scale.
If we are a simulation, we could just be a static simulation. Meaning the universe was created and evolves based on the originating formula/design. Or the simulation could be accessible to revisions.
We'll never know.
Or will we?
Déjà vu
If logic doesn't need to be coded into the program generating the simulacrum, neither should number theory. Coding either of them into the program(s) are impossible feats, as far as I can tell.
Whether we are talking about capacitors, resistors, transistors, or relays in general, it doesn't really matter. There are certain fundamental limitations that have to do with our language / the nature of understanding of formal systems / modeling. These would be felt if any simulacrum had to be judged as sufficiently-real and-or if the real basis of the simulacrum on the part of the universe was infinite in any sense pertinent to it being copied and-or mapped for the simulacrum.
The bolded states one of the things I have been trying to express a bit more pointedly.Yes.
We are just beginning to explore biological computing and things like gene editing. You edit a gene and the rest is done by another organism. In this case the human body. The human body is comprised of many "technologies"working in concert. Much like a circuit board that has capacitors, resistors AND transistors making the yes no decisions.
A entity capable of creating the universe as a simulation would be so far beyond our comprehension. I mean, in theory, everything is a yes no decision. can the cells combine? Yes or no? Do the atoms attract. Yes or no?
We only need think about the fact that 200 years ago no one could imagine genes, much less being able to edit them or manipulate atoms. Just our solar systems is 4.5 billion years old. That entire time could be 1 year to the creators of this "simulation".
Thinking of creating a universe limiting it to our understanding of computing is like comparing a child that finally understands 1+1=2 and a college student understanding calculus and geometry only on a much grander scale.
If we are a simulation, we could just be a static simulation. Meaning the universe was created and evolves based on the originating formula/design. Or the simulation could be accessible to revisions.
We'll never know.
Or will we?
Déjà vu
