Know everything-computer

**RoD** · 10-02-2002

no i didn't change opinion, i'm jus sick of repeating my opinion.

circular logic = this post.

**lightatdawn** · 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.)

Yet again I agree with you. We're on the same page here, arguing the same thing. I actually never said "computer", although I understand that was the origional question. I kind of went a little to one side and said "calculating unit". I understand that (to my current knowledge of the facts) it would be impossible to actually design a system capable of this, and I dont believe such a system could _ever be_ built. I'm really only arguing theory here, because I took slight offence to the notion that the universe has chaotic elements, or that static variables are random. You could say I'm nit picking but... maybe I am.

Theres also the fact that the computer would obviously have to model itself as well, causing much more confusion. Should even a single particle be unaddressed, the whole thing falls apart. This would lead to a problem. If each element of the "unit" had to be calculated then the number of elements _in_ the unit would increase by 1 in order to address the new data. But now theres something additional to record... Add new element. Repeat.

Obviously now this unit requires an infinite number of calculating elements. We now see it to be physically impossible. (Though the theory remains intact.)

**RoD** · 10-02-2002

my brain is actually melting

**kevinalm** · 10-02-2002

You've basically got it. As to absolutism, in my mind at least it's an open question. It's kind of like "if a tree falls in the forest and no one's there does it make a sound?" If you can't tell if a particle has an absolute position/velocity, does it have one? The evidence is not really compelling to me either way, although I lean toward yes. (My opinion only.)

Calculating unit or computer, the problem is the same. By saying know everything, your really saying modelling everything in the universe. Unless you postulate building your machine in an alternate universe/reality (way far off the original question) it can't be done. Well, actually there is one way your can model the universe. A really nifty analog computer. It's called the universe.

**lightatdawn** · 10-02-2002

>>Obviously now this unit requires an infinite number of calculating elements. <---- Me

Rewording my initial reply to help stop ride's brain from melting, you could say that the unit requires x+1 elements, where x is the total number of elements the unit has.

>>Unless you postulate building your machine in an alternate universe/reality

I was only postualting building a 'theoretical' machine. I know its really not relevant to anything, but its interesting (to me anyhow).

>>Well, actually there is one way your can model the universe. A really nifty analogue computer. It's called the universe.

Heh, now there ya go. If only it had a nice little LCD screen to tell us its results.

>>If you can't tell if a particle has an absolute position/velocity, does it have one?

This goes back to discussions we've had around here before. Its really a matter of probability. Based on current knowledge, I would conclude that yes, it would be most probable that said particle does indeed have a position and velocity. We're only projecting a result based on admittedly incomplete data, but what else do we have? We cant be going around refusing to answer any questions or know anything at all because we dont have all of the data and its not all infintely accurate. We all have a point that, when reached, we decide x is probable "enough" to become fact.

P.S. This has been an enjoyable discussion (I'm assuming its pretty much over, although I wish it wasn't). There hasn't been much interesting theory discussed on the boards recently. I'm glad this one came up (and I noticed it, heh).

**kevinalm** · 10-02-2002

Enjoyed the thread myself. Probably time to shut it down though. Later. Kevin

PS Ride or Die. I find that the occasional beer helps with cerebral meltdown, when done in moderation.

**Waldo2k2** · 10-02-2002

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...

that would be chaos theory right there. That also dips into quantum mechanics, by the very nature of quantum data, viewing or manipulating it in any way destroys the data, and turns it into, well, the equivilant of applesauce.
Which brings me to my next point, if a computer were to calculate the future (or something along those lines) it would have to know everything as was suggested in the post. To know everything would include quantum data. Which is impossible, because by reading it you destroy it, changing the outcome of whatever you're trying to calculate. So not only is it impossible at this point to know everything, but it is inherently impossible to calculate the future with complete accuracy.
I rest my case.

**lightatdawn** · 10-02-2002

>>that would be chaos theory right there.

Well, not really. The only way that this kind of information could change the "future", would be for that information, and thus, the calculating unit, to come form outside of the universe. Because (as it was stated), if such a theoretical calculating unit existed inside the universe, it would have to calculate itself and all the variables pertaining to it, and thus would calculate the results of the data it submits. No problems there. Life goes on as predicted.

The only problem arises because such a unit cannot physically exist inside this universe (as argued above), and thus, must exist outside of the calculated area. Now this constitutes outside data being entered into the calculation, which of course, screws everything up. Life no longer goes as predicted in this scenerio.

**Waldo2k2** · 10-02-2002

in rebuttle,
your response does make sense...but it simply doesn't cover everything.
No matter where the calculating unit is, regardless of calculating itself or not, there is important data that needs to be read to calculate anything...this data is quantum data. By quantum mechanics, quantum data is turned into applesauce when you try to read, change, or otherwise 'verb' it in any way. So, if the calculating unit was in some other universe, and it tried to read all the information about another universe, that would be equivilant to throwing the universe into the blender and hitting frappe'. What comes out in no way resembles what went in...you now know nothing as far as quantum data goes.
Here's why i use the term 'applesauce'. Take a spoonful of applesauce...look at it...there is no way you can tell what the apple looked like before it became applesauce. It's just not possible. That's why your theory just won't work. It all comes down to applesauce.

**Zewu** · 10-03-2002

Kevinalm, have you been reading Lao Tzu, or watched the Simpsons?

**Sentaku senshi** · 10-03-2002

Ok, lets say I have a ball and I place it some where in the middle of space. Now this ball has an infinite number of velocity that it could travel so thus it would be imposible to perdict all of this.

**lightatdawn** · 10-03-2002

>>Now this ball has an infinite number of velocity

Why?

**Waldo2k2** · 10-03-2002

>>Now this ball has an infinite number of velocity

Why?

because velocity is rate of speed and direction, since the universe is infinite then there are infinite velocities that the ball could posess at a given time...
nice example Sentaku

**lightatdawn** · 10-03-2002

>>since the universe is infinite

Yes, but you're assuming this. Earlier on in the thread I stated that for the sake of this argument we were going to assume the universe to be finite, otherwise this whole equation falls apart. I'd already considered this. (Read back a few pages.)

**Waldo2k2** · 10-03-2002

ok sorry about that
but as far as the original topic goes, i'm sticking with impossible due to my quantum theory explanation. Applesauce....it's all about the applesauce.