[goaty]

Why can we simulate electronic circuits (look at digital filters.) but we cant simulate the universe, aren't they the exact same thing?

[goaty]

I guess raytracers and electrical simulations are simpler than with the actual matter with it?

[LOCKSUIT]

So you propose, we already simulate circuit boards (trillions of trillions of trillions of particles) on our computers as simplified but identical objects, so, therefore, why not larger things like planets, even with people on them, where we can run it even on our computers near exactly the same as it runs currently in real life?

Hmm...Well, we don't know how they work, do we.....

Or do we?

Well, sir, we can, grab UE4 and make some rivers and ur god!!

[HS]

Electric circuits are easy (relatively) to find equations for. The whole universe would require the infamous theory of everything. Then it should be possible to simulate a simplified version of the universe.

[LOCKSUIT]

[LOCKSUIT]

[LOCKSUIT]

[LOCKSUIT]

[LOCKSUIT]

Clearly, after seeing the above, you can realize the higher level affects are independent of the small level effects. They ARE made of the small, but you can simulate te high level without any of the smaller. Alternatively, you can simulate a smaller level, say a few bubbles (not ALL). So you can simulate anything...if are reasonable about your storage/compute.

But, you gotta understand the effect. We don't know how bedrock decay/etc work fully but we can see the globe move in a circle - so we can do it, but not the bedrock decay. Same for humans, we can't do them, but can do effects from them, say, ozone damage by gas build-up.

[WriterOfMinds]

a) Our current understanding of quantum mechanics does not allow us to regard the universe as purely deterministic -- meaning that even if you know its present state, you cannot predict its upcoming state with certainty
b) Just measuring the complete present state of the universe would require a massive amount of effort, and it would be constantly changing while we tried to measure it
c) Even where a system is fully deterministic, we know its present state, and we have a good understanding of its laws, simplified simulations are not always possible (see: chaos theory)
d) The whole universe is way too big and we don't have the computational power

[HS]

We have figured out bits of how the universe works, we could combine them into one big simulation. Maybe a deep learning network could take a look at this model and determine a way to unify all of it.

We wouldn't be able to simulate "the universe" but it should allow us to simulate "universe". Its all made of the same thing, once you've got a bit, you've got it all.

[Freddy]

Anyone think that weather models are one of the most advanced simulations we currently have?

[Korrelan]

Anyone think that weather models are one of the most advanced simulations we currently have?

Living in the Midlands UK... No.

Anyone fancy a soggy BBQ burger?

 

Ed:

Code

245=2+4+5=11 -- 245-11=234 -- 2+3+4=9
18=1+8=9 -- 18-9=9
193=1+9+3=13 -- 193-13=180 -- 1+8+0=9
222=2+2+2=6 -- 222-6=216 -- 2+1+6=9
333=3+3+3=9 -- 333-9=324 -- 3+2+4=9
559=5+5+9=19 – 559-19=540 – 5+4+0=9

Any number 10 up to 559 ?



 

[Freddy]

Hehe, I wasn't suggesting it was perfect. 

[goaty]

The weather simulation probably is top notch tho,  with the tornado predictors.

If it was in a robots brain - he would surely go to sunny areas If the rain was rusting his circuits,  basicly rendering him one stiff diode after enough of it.