Know everything-computer

**RoD** · 10-01-2002

lol i have this place as my homepage, big mistake i never get **** done lol

**kevinalm** · 10-01-2002

OK, one more time for those who think a know everything computer is possible. (This is probably futile.)

The problem isn't the accuracy of the computers or the computation. It's the accuracy of the initial data. That is where Heisenberg's uncertainty principle comes in. There is a "fuzziness" attached to measuring velocity and position that is a fundamental property of nature. At the molecular level this becomes pronounced. (The source of the fuzziness is the strict momentum/energy/wavelength interelation of the photon.)

Look at it this way. Let's say for the moment that every elementary particle has an absolute position and velocity. Heisenberg says (based on some basic physics that you really can't get around and we're talking as fundamental as 1 +1 =2 in math) there is a limit to how accurately you can measure it. Your input data is always a little off. Chaos/nonlinear theory shows that these initial errors will amplify over time and your model will fail sooner or later.

What is interesting about chaotic and nonlinear systems is that given these initial errors, and due to the types of mathmatical equations that describe these phenomena, the ability to accurately model is absolutely limited. After running your computer model for so long, it no longer represents the real world. If your model is good enough, it may provided insight into how a process works, but its ability to predict has a limit. A prime example would be a weather model that shows how thunderstorms develope, but can't predict a thunderstorm 3 weeks from now.

Actual models of real world systems usually don't even measure to Heisenberg's limit. Usually the initial data isn't even that good.

I understand the confusion. This is very counter intuative. But it is the way the universe works.

**face_master** · 10-01-2002

Computers are limited to the knolwedge of humans, so in other words, before a computer can know it, a human must know it first.

**lightatdawn** · 10-01-2002

I understand what you're saying kevinalm, you obviously know what you're talking about. I agree with you on all points.

The fact remains though that there is no "chaos" or "random". The only variation lies in our inability to accuratly measure to infinite precision. Should all data be entered correctly into the aforementioned calculating unit of sufficient capacity, it would then be able to perfectly calculate any point in the future. The paradox would then be that if someone gained knowledge of a calculated event, that would change the parameters of the universe and the calculated action could/would be different...

**face_master** · 10-01-2002

it depends on by which means you measure it...maybe there is a way to find an absolutely accurate velosity of, for example a ball flying through the air.

**kevinalm** · 10-02-2002

Facemaster. Unfortunately no. Not without getting into "Star Trek" science. In other words, a fundamental revolution in physics. The Heisenberg principle is founded on such a fundamental understanding that the likelyhood of a "loophole" is virtually nil.

It comes down to the fact that the primary particle long distance interactions(collisions,ect) are electromagnetically mediated (photons). Wavelength sets a limit on the accuracy of position and energy/momentum limits the accuracy of velocity measurement. (Energy/momentum disturbs the particle in the particle-photon collision used to "measure" the particle.) Wavelength/energy/momentum of the photon is tied together in a formula involving Plank's constant.

You are right that the heavier the object the more accurate the measurement, but the error is still there, and will eventually grow to unacceptable levels as you run forward in time.

Lightatdawn. Absolutism is certainly debatable, but it ultimately it dosn't matter. You can never find out what that absolute is. Personally, I tend to lean toward a unmeasurable absolute myself, although that is probably the minority opinion.

**Zewu** · 10-02-2002

Finally some people around who understand me!

Originally posted by lightatdawn
The paradox would then be that if someone gained knowledge of a calculated event, that would change the parameters of the universe and the calculated action could/would be different...

Now, I think it could loop around and calculate it's own existance.

**RoD** · 10-02-2002

i'm sorry but i have to completely go with kevin here.

**crag2804** · 10-02-2002

Light you say

"I understand what you're saying kevinalm, you obviously know what you're talking about. I agree with you on all points."

"The fact remains though that there is no "chaos" or "random"".

These two are a bit contraditory light. You agree with kevin when he says:

There is a "fuzziness" attached to measuring velocity and position that is a fundamental property of nature.

and yet you say there is no chaos. Which, stripped down, is just a consequence of the "fuzziness" errors over time.
I'm confused

**lightatdawn** · 10-02-2002

>>i'm sorry but i have to completely go with kevin here.

So do I. Thats becuse he's right. The point I'm making has nothing to do with fuzziness due to miscalculation.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is _not_ randomness in the actual variable itself. The only variation comes from inaccurate measurement. Theres a difference, and a big one. The former would cause the universe as we know it to "fall apart". The later is acceptable. We're not perfect, after all.

Thats all I'm saying. _If_ this calculating unit _had_ the "perfect" data, it _would_ be able to calculate in the aforementioned manner.

**RoD** · 10-02-2002

well said L@D

**kevinalm** · 10-02-2002

Lightatdawn. Yes, but, (sound of other shoe dropping) have you considered the requirements of this hypothetical computer? You need to model the motion of every elementary particle in the universe. (Yes, you do. Trust me on this. It's called quantum vacuum fluctuation.) Let's say your a super genius designer and you can do it with one transistor per elementary particle and one atom per transistor. (I'm cutting you a lot of slack here.) There aren't enough atoms in the universe. (By several orders of magnitude.)

**red_baron** · 10-02-2002

the question never had been if computers today can model everything, the question was can computers at a later date be able to model the universe...
so basically the answer is that if humans could get all the right data then a computer would be able to model it. hopefully everyone agrees with this now but most likely someone has something to say bout it (bet ya anything that ppl are now gonna argue about what was really asked in the first place