If a computer knew how everything started, and knew all the laws of physics, could it then calculate everything that has ever happened, and that ever will happen?
Printable View
If a computer knew how everything started, and knew all the laws of physics, could it then calculate everything that has ever happened, and that ever will happen?
nope. Because the conditions that would need to be met are impossible.
I believe it is Heisenberg's principle that states that at some level you cannot know everything about anything.
exactly, in order for a computer to know everything the human programming it would have to share all the same knowledge, and that, my friend, is impossible in itself.
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle it is. There is a very easy to understand reason why a computer couldn't predict things like that. Imagine a 50/50 chance of something happening ( not just heads or tails but something truely 50/50 ), in that case it is truely random which option comes out and although a computer could program the result of both events there would already be two different futures. This would happen countless times for the life of the universe and leaves you with a myriad of different options, only one of which would be accurate ( This is the basis of the multiple universe theory ). Add to that things like radioactive decay ( another truely random process ) and the choas of things ( sensitive dependance on initial conditions ). You have one messed up, unpredictable world.
*sees a long and logical post comeing on*
Wouldn't this technically be a general topic, not a tech topic?
What was Schroedinger's cats name?
It never had a name in my lectures.
So until you look it up Schroedinger's cat's name is both phil and buttons...
Schroedinger's cat is the famous quantum cat which is trapped in a box and which may or may not be dead. It remains in a state of uncertainty - even confusion - until the curious Schroedinger opens the box where upon, instantly, the quantum cat is revealed as dead or alive.
The quantum cat passes from the indeterminate state of being dead or alive to the determinate state of being dead (or alive!). Quantum physics says that the quantum cat is not revealed as always having been dead or always having been alive. It says rather that it is the act of opening the box which collapses the quantum state-vector which describes the state of the cat. Many people did not like that idea when it was first proposed by Schroedinger, but eventually modern physics had to accept it even though it flew in the face of common sense - even Schroedinger seems to have found it an uncomfortable conclusion.
I don't know who asked that, but ok...
One more thing though...
The scenario required that the life of the cat depend on some variable that is truly unpredicatable, regardless of the environment. In the original paper a certain type of radioactive decay was used for this.
The porpose being that if you could isolate every variable that could affect the cat, then you could know its state without seeing it. But since you could not predict this decay even if you knew everything knowable about the environment of the experiment, the cat's state became a quantum uncertainty.
exactly!
*copied and pasted off yahoo after looking up Schroedinger Heisenberg's cat, and really thought it was a cat.*
But what was it's name???
I have no idea. It must be Schroedinger's cat :P
well is Schroedinger's cat walks into the woods but noones around to see it, does Schroedinger's cat really walk into the woods?
As to the original question, no, not even close. You are getting into what is known as chaos theory and non-linear systems. Commonly called the butterfly effect. A butterfly flaps its wings in China and a tornado wipes out a town in the American midwest. An interesting and usually overlooked collorary is that you could never know that a particular wing flap or butterfly was responsible.
The difficultly is that in many real world systems a tiny variation in initial conditions results in a relatively large change in the result (hence non-linear). These errors can and usually do amplify over time. A case in point is weather forcasting. After 36 to 48 hours, your basically guessing.
Another interesting aspect is that quantum uncertainty can manifest in real world phenomena in so far as the Heisenberg principle, amplified by non-linear processes, sets a limit for the accuracy of real world calculations in certain cases. (Line up a dozen or so billiard balls in a straight line. Aiming along the line, strike the first ball with a cue. You cannot predict the path of the final ball, even assuming a perfect stroke. The difference of a impact of a single air molecule on the first ball can swing the final ball full plus or minus 90 degrees.)
What says a computer couldn't compute that?Quote:
Originally posted by kevinalm
Line up a dozen or so billiard balls in a straight line. Aiming along the line, strike the first ball with a cue. You cannot predict the path of the final ball, even assuming a perfect stroke. The difference of a impact of a single air molecule on the first ball can swing the final ball full plus or minus 90 degrees.
That process isn't random. Radioactive decay depends on how much energy the atoms are loaded with.Quote:
Originally posted by crag2804
Add to that things like radioactive decay ( another truely random process ).
My whole thought is based on that there is no such thing as randomness, and that there's enough computer power to calculate all these things.
In order for it to be computer you would have to know ahead of the hit exactly what would happen, to know this is IMPOSSIBLE.Quote:
What says a computer couldn't compute that?
Maybe today, but not forever.Quote:
Originally posted by Ride -or- Die
In order for it to be computer you would have to know ahead of the hit exactly what would happen, to know this is IMPOSSIBLE.
Here is a link:
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Radioactivity.html
Here is a quote from that link:
"Making a precise prediction of when an individual nucleus will decay is not possible"
Radioactive decay is random, thats why schrodinger chose it as his random process.
"That process isn't random. Radioactive decay depends on how much energy the atoms are loaded with.
My whole thought is based on that there is no such thing as randomness, and that there's enough computer power to calculate all these things."
Please don't make me out a liar zewu to justify your thought process.
how do u figure, its IMPOSSIBLE. PERIOD. IT CANNOT BE DONE, EVER.Quote:
Maybe today, but not forever
Why can't it be done ever?
It's called the uncertainty principle. In layman's terms, stripped of mathematical jargon, it states that since the momentum and wavelength of light are absolutely linked, there is a limit on the precision with which you can know the simultaneous position and velocity of anything. In the types of nonlinear systems we're talking about, this translates to no matter how accurately you compute, errors in the initial conditions will make your calculation wrong at some point in the future.
In the billiard ball example, an imbalence of a single air molecule impact is enough to make your computation worthless.
It isn't a problem of computer power. Computers are irrelavent to the question. It's the physics.Some systems cannot be modelled. Or more precisely, there are physical limits to the accuracy with which some types of systems can be modelled, to the point where some models are basically worthless, at least in so far as predicting the future state of the system.
NOBODY can predict what will happen to the absolute happening when a pool ball is struck because there may always be an unforseen factor.
Almost right. There ALWAYS is an unforseen factor. That's what Heisenberg is all about. Actually, it sets a minimum error, most systems have errors much greater than his limit.
it could compute a PREDICTION of that, but it would have a percentage of a chance of getting it right, and even though it may know how everything works, and have loads of variables loaded for every freakin molecule inthe cueball example it still has teh same percentage of a chance of getting it right. You just don't know what's going to happen. To drive the point home (hopefully for the final time) i ask you to flip a coin. You KNOW that the chances are 50/50...but knowing that you cannot KNOW the outcome, you may guess, and you may be right...but your prior knowledge would have no bearing on that. A baby could flip a coin, not knowing the chances, and predict heads or tails and have as good of a chance as you, knowing the chances. So I say do not argue things you don't know squat about (zewu i'm talking to you as you were the person who initially asked the question). Hopefully you've learned something here.Quote:
What says a computer couldn't compute that?
thank god i was getting ........ed cause it seemed like no one got the point i was trying to make lol.
Well said kev
It's true I don't know much. Do you?
apparently more then u in that particular concept :P
if u can calculate the force with wich you flip a coin and calculate the force of graivity and air resistance, as well as knowing the initial state (head or tales before flipping) then u can caluculate if it lands head or tails :D
(you may need to calculate some other factors but my point is it is possible to calculate what it lands with the appropriate data)
You can't predict the air resistance, there could be a sudden gust or change in a molocule that was impossible to predict, u cann't positively predict it.Quote:
if u can calculate the force with wich you flip a coin and calculate the force of graivity and air resistance
>>My whole thought is based on that there is no such thing as randomness
You're on the right track zewu. Some people here seem to be limiting themselves. In _theory_, this process of calculation _would_ be possible. In reality it would be impossible to calculate all the variables involved.
Theoretically, it would be possible to predict any point in the future if the unit used to calculate, had memory capacity at least equal to all variables in the existing universe, multiplied by all possible interactions between each of these variables, multiplied but the total possible interactions over the course of time you wished to predict. This hinges on the universe being finite, as if it is not, the capacity of the calculating unit would have to be infinte +1.
Think about it.
if u had a computer that "knew" everything it could tell when each molecule in the universe is moving so theoretically it can predict when a gust of wind is coming or when ANY variable changes, as lightadawn said you would need to model everything with variables and have a computer that is able to handle all that data, if u did sometime in the future it is possible to model every molecule in the universe and hence have a all knowing computer. but then again how long will it take for a computer like that to be built?Quote:
Originally posted by Ride -or- Die
You can't predict the air resistance, there could be a sudden gust or change in a molocule that was impossible to predict, u cann't positively predict it.
Can I recommend a book to all you people who think calculation of everthing is possible with infinite computing resources.
Its called "Chaos" by James Gleick, its a good read and might englighten you to things you didn't know.
ISBN:
0-7493-8606-1
it CAN'T be built. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EVERYTHING, PERIOD.Quote:
but then again how long will it take for a computer like that to be built?
what part of impossible is so hard to understand, it CANNOT be done!
i'll read it and let you know what i think of it.
(i am open-minded to strange theories, though i have read about the chaos theory before and fractals which are related)
why are u so stubborn? you keep saying it cannot be done and wont even give proof or try to justify why it cannot be done. plz try to explain to the rest of us why u think it can't be done.Quote:
Originally posted by Ride -or- Die
it CAN'T be built. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EVERYTHING, PERIOD.
what part of impossible is so hard to understand, it CANNOT be done!
Simple.
There will always be a un-forseeable formula/outcome alter'n factor that cannot be predicted because it is un-forseeable.
>>it CAN'T be built. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EVERYTHING, PERIOD.
Why not? Assuming the universe is finite (which is reasonable), then there is a finite amount to know. It may be beyond our current capabilitiy or even within the realm of possibility given our current technology, yet that doesnt make it "impossible". Difficult to the point of dismissal, yes, but it is most definitly _possible_.
>>Its called "Chaos" by James Gleick
Care to sum up a few points for the sake of us that have not read it and do not have the capacity to do so in the (near) future? I have never seen a shred of evidence supporting "chaos". That theory would seem to break down our ability to know _anything_ at all...
[EDIT]
>>There will always be a un-forseeable formula/outcome alter'n factor that cannot be predicted because it is un-forseeable.
You know, that doesnt make any sense. Or rather, it does, but its circular so its not definative. Meaning; You didnt answer the question. (I'm not trying to be hardass... No offence.)
I knew nothing about chaos but was bored one day in town. I bought it and was definatly glad I did. Only £7.99 its a bargain.Quote:
i'll read it and let you know what i think of it.
(i am open-minded to strange theories, though i have read about the chaos theory before and fractals which are related)
Evidence about chaos is everywhere. Eg
Whats the weather going to be like next month? You don't know because of chaos theory.
if a computer knows the position and state of every molecule in the universe and knows about all the forces which can act apon it, it can accuartly model this data and reach a result.
can u give me an actual example of what u mean by an "unforseen" formula/outcome.
today things are only random because we cannot model all things, we cannot calculate every aspect of a situtation like rolling a die for example, if we had a computer wich knew about everything and knew where every exact molecule of that dice is and all the the molecules around this dice, then it can calculate the complex path which it will travel, and also apply any additional forces that the molecules around it exert on it and finally compute what the outcome of rolling the die will be.
you dont know because we cannot model teh exact position of everything that affects weather at the current moment in time, if we had a computer that knew about the position of all molecules and knew about all forces of physics then it can predict weather acuratly.Quote:
Originally posted by crag2804
Evidence about chaos is everywhere. Eg
Whats the weather going to be like next month? You don't know because of chaos theory.
because we do not have the technology to do it right now doesn't mean it cannot be done
I doubt this post is ever going to reach a conclusion. It'd probably be better to agree to disagree.
yea but nobody can predict the ever changing chnages in molocules.
I just don't see how anything can know everything when so much is unpredictable.
my point is that it cannot be done right now but who knows about a thousand or a couple of thousand years from now. we may be able to model everything, anyway i got an essay to write and can't stay all day been nice discussing with you ppl :)Quote:
Originally posted by Ride -or- Die
yea but nobody can predict the ever changing chnages in molocules.
I just don't see how anything can know everything when so much is unpredictable.
The point is, that there is no actual "chaos" or "random". If you take action 'A', and repeat it in an identical envirmoent, with identical forces in play, you _will_ get the same result of that action. We just say something is random when we're too stupid to understand/calculate all the forces in play in any given circumstance. Its not that the universe is random in nature, its that we are limited in our perception of it.
lol i have this place as my homepage, big mistake i never get **** done lol
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.
Computers are limited to the knolwedge of humans, so in other words, before a computer can know it, a human must know it first.
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...
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.
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.
Finally some people around who understand me!
Now, I think it could loop around and calculate it's own existance.Quote:
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...
i'm sorry but i have to completely go with kevin here.
Light you say
These two are a bit contraditory light. You agree with kevin when he says:Quote:
"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"".
and yet you say there is no chaos. Which, stripped down, is just a consequence of the "fuzziness" errors over time.Quote:
There is a "fuzziness" attached to measuring velocity and position that is a fundamental property of nature.
I'm confused
>>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.
well said L@D
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.)
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 :rolleyes: )
der...um....hmm.....what was the question again?!
lmao my brain can't take anymore, i quit this thread :P
You mean you changed opinion?
There's nothing wrong with that.
no i didn't change opinion, i'm jus sick of repeating my opinion.
circular logic = this post.
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.Quote:
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.)
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.)
my brain is actually melting
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.;)
>>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).
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. :D
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.Quote:
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...
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.
>>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.
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.
Kevinalm, have you been reading Lao Tzu, or watched the Simpsons?
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.
>>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...Quote:
>>Now this ball has an infinite number of velocity
Why?
nice example Sentaku
>>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.)
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.
Zewu. Not sure I get your meaning. I haven't read much eastern philosophy, although The Art of War should be required reading. My opinion of philosphy is that most of it is an entertaining waste of time. Some of the ancient greek stuff is useful. (The only thing I know is that I know nothing, and it is that that makes me wise--Plato if I recall, maybe Socrates). I always liked their ideas about "the good" , "truth" , "beauty" and the "middle road". Political philosophy the way to go is with Locke. (As did Franklin, Jefferson, et al.)
As for the comment about the beer,
1. I was attempting humor.
2. Drinking in moderation has some good health effects (consult your physician).
3. When struggling with a difficult intellectual problem, ONE beer can actually help. It knocks out inhibitions, and lets your subconcious go past roadblocks that your concious mind puts up. Also works on multiple choice tests when you haven't studied as much as you should. You don't second guess yourself. Second guessing a multiple choice is a bad idea, unless you know for certain the first choice was wrong. A glass of beer was how the bubble chamber was invented by the way, without which we wouldn't have much to discuss in this thread. (A bubble chamber makes the tracks of elementary particles visible in collider experiments, although other methods have been developed of late.)
Q: Is this the thread that wouldn't die? :)
I'm out of here. Later all.
>>As for the comment about the beer,
Am I missing something? I dont see any comments about beer... I'm pretty sure we all understood you. No?
>>i'm sticking with impossible due to my quantum theory explanation.
I'm working on a response here. I wonder if you could supply me with one single piece of quantum data that would be relevant to the calculation? Keep in mind that every physical particle in the universe is part of this calculation.
>>Q: Is this the thread that wouldn't die?
Havent you seen some of the other theory debates we've had here at cprog? Albeit not for a while, but there _have_ been some whoppers. 20 or so pages wasn't all that amazing for a while.
ok, you must not get what i mean. It was suggested earlier that if a computer were to know everything, to have variables for all data in the universe, it could calculate the future. To do this you must know everything (duh, that's what i just said) and to know that you have to include quantum data. Also, quantum data includes the spin of quarks, etc. That may not seem important, but that determines the nature of the subatomic particles it makes up, and the atoms behavior as well. You would have to know that behavior to know everything. Everything has quantum data at some level, so in response to your question, I could point out infinite pieces of data that would be relevant, because like i said everything contains quantum data at some level.Quote:
I wonder if you could supply me with one single piece of quantum data that would be relevant to the calculation?
It's like i'm talking to the walls here...if you don't know all the quantum data in the universe, then you don't know everything, and you therefore could not calculate the future. So what is it now that you're not getting??
First off, I apologise if I'm seeming dense. Something about what your saying isnt clicking with me and I'm trying to figure out how to put into words what I'm thinking.
>>Also, quantum data includes the spin of quarks, etc
What I dont understand here is _why_ you think this data would turn to applesauce if knowedge was gained regarding it. Remember also that I'm not talking about physically reading all this data, and in no way manipulate it to gain the information. I'm talking about theoretically _having_ this information without ever implicitly "reading" it. Also we dont technically need all 'ways of looking at each piece of data'.
i.e. The calculating unit has no need to know what any given person is "thinking". We already have the position of all the particles that person is composed of. That means that we can project everything this person will do based on what neurons will be firing at what point, for which stimuli, and the results it firing. Theres no need to have any data but the physical, as all other data is merely a description of the same. (Am I making sense? I may not have explained that very well...)
Yes, I realise that this line of reasoning is pointless as its all physically impossible, but its an interesting concept so I continue to blather on about it as long as someone is still around to talk back.
Sorry if I got off topic. I made a friendly quip toward Ride or Die about having a cold one to combat "brain melt" and Zewu answered with something I don't quite get.
I think what your probably missing is that one of the more esoteric aspects of quantum theory is that performing a mathematical operation on quantum data "eats" the data. I'm not really up on this myself but I believe it has something to do with data storage requiring a quantum of energy per bit, or something along those lines. It's been awhile since I've read anything on it.
Also, there are other strange and interesting things, quantum entanglement for example, that will mess with your calculation.
To my way of thinking, it's all part of the same uncertainty phenomena. I've got my own little maxim for it. The universe conspires to be self consistant. If you study science a while, you begin to see that if you find one reason something won't work, there are probably several reasons it won't work.
And if look at all the reasons it won't work, you often see that they are all the same reason, expressed in different ways.
And often that's when you learn something new.