TV Shows Devs.

Here's a little BBC Pop Science documentary that might get you up to speed

 

People said similar thing about computers in the past, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.", "640K ought to be enough for anyone.", etc, etc.

And like i said we're not talking about 100%, we're talking about 99.99 two the power of something, IDK how you write that but add a sexdecillion of more 9's (and yes i did only choose that because it started with sex. )

Yes but, and I'm only using an appeal to the extreme here for rhetorical purposes here, if the accuracy and computation power increases indefinitely then the degree of accuracy would only increase as would the time.

Essentially it seem like the three of you who are poo-pooing the idea are saying that even though both the accuracy and computation power that we enjoy today is way beyond the imagination of the early computer engineers that you can't imagine a world where that continues, that 640KB ought to be enough for anybody.

And yet we do, or are you saying that predictions of where the planets will be in 100 years are wrong.

 

All three of us are poo-pooing the idea because what you're proposing is physically impossible. We know why it's physically impossible, and we've tried to explain why it's physically impossible, but you refuse to accept it. Instead comparing market predictions and hunches on use case scenarios with hard physics.

Do we know where the planets will be in 100 years? Yes, pretty much...and no, definitely not. It all depends on the degree of precision we're talking. They'll probably be roughly where we expect them to be, but they won't be exactly where we calculate them to be. Prevailing cosmic winds could push them off course, or hell, a large interstellar object could crash in to Jupiter...or a sexdillion other variables we haven't accounted for. All modelling and prediction is about the degree of usefulness. It's useful to use an accurate-enough model to predict that the planets will still be in orbit in 100 years, but also impossible to predict where they'll be exactly

 

If you have two bodies (and nothing else in the universe) you can perfectly forward-predict position and velocity (with the assumption of perfect initial state, which we already know is impossible for particles but verges towards an asymptote of correctness at the macroscopic scale).
But if you have three bodies? nope, not possible to perfectly predict. You can model an n-body system, but your predictions will only be as good as the fidelity of your model. And that model not only needs to take account of the gravitational force on and by every object (including all the little asteroids and comets and dust clouds flying about) but things like differential radiation pressure from rotation (YORP effect & Yarkovsky effect), interaction from external bodies (the rest of the galaxy exists, as does the rest of the universe, and has a variable and compounding influence over time), outgassing (e.g. sundiving comets as a dramatic example), the fact that planetary bodies are not perfect rigid solids but clumps of squishy-on-that-scale rock and other volatiles, etc.To model 'basic' plantery orbits the measurements of starting conditions required quickly begins to verge towards needing detailed volumetric composition surveys of every body involved as timescales increase and fidelity demanded is increased.
On the sale of a few hundred thousand km you can make good predictions out to a significant time. If you want a finer scale, that prediction time shortens. For example, if you want to perform a gravity-assist to save propellant for your interplanetary space probe, you need to perform both mid-course and pre- and post-manoeuvre course correction burns to account for the difference between the at-injection-time measurements of the probe and target body position and velocity, and what the actual position and velocity are a few months or years later when it comes time to perform the close-approach itself.

This applies with modelling both forward and backward in time, and is why we can get good measurements of the position and velocity of ʻOumuamua and Borisov, but can only make rough estimate of their paths and origins.

 

I thought i lacked imagination but you guys take the biscuit, no offense intend.

The reason i started this thread in general is because it was meant to be a discussion of what may, or could, be possible with a quantum computer as depicted in a min-series but you've all turned it into ohh this isn't possible because of X, Y, or Z *pushes glasses up nose*, you must be right killjoys on movie night.

I'm not going to say anymore on the subject and instead leave people to watch the series, that's if you can bear to watch such an unrealistic portrayal, it probably would've been more fun to discuss the subject with people who've actually watch the series but i guess that will have to wait until after it airs on terrestrial TV.

 

Look, it doesn't matter if you have a 'Quantum computer' or a Greek oracle: if you need to ignore how reality actually works in order for them to be able to predict the future then the two may as well be functionally identical.
Or in other words: you can't yell "quantum computer!" as an explanation for why you get to ignore one of the fundamentals of quantum physics. If you need to invalidate QM for your measurements to be possible, you've just invalidated your computer too.

Well you got that alright, you just didn't like what everyone else thought!

 

Physicists Reverse Time for Tiny Particles Inside a Quantum Computer.

 

To be fair the initial premise was "...if we had infinite computing power", which would be by necessity outside of our (or any conventionally understood) frame of reference.

 

Not seeing where i said we can do that with today's technology, that would be a bit like saying shortly after the first silicon transistor that we can use it to model the molecular physics of combustion, simulates the interactions between electrons and atoms in magnetic materials at temperatures other than absolute zero, or any other of the unfathomable task, at least to the people experimenting with the first silicon transistors, that super computers now do.

 

There are extremely well-defined, fundamental reasons in quantum mechanics that dictate why something like this is quite literally impossible on anything but the smallest scales, in an isolated system. We've tried to explain why it's impossible, but you ignored it. We've tried to point you in the right direction so you can learn why for yourself, but you didn't bother. Instead, in your ignorance, you just keep pushing and pushing a hypothesis from a sci-fi TV show and accusing everyone but yourself as lacking imagination. If you actually learned why it's impossible, and why everyone is disagreeing with you, you'd be blushing at your stubbornness right now.

 

And you're here..

How many times does it need saying, i started this thread in an attempt to discuss what maybe possible in the future, not what is possible now, now what you've decided is the hard and fast rules of quantum mechanics that as I've already pointed out If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics, that's not me who said that it's Richard Feynman.

Look if you don't want to entertain the notion that our current understanding will never be supersede, that those supposed "extremely well-defined, fundamental reasons in quantum mechanics" are never gong to be disproven like so many other theories then that's fine, it would go against the most fundamental scientific principal but if you lack the imagination to think of other possibilities then you go for it.

It would've been nice if you hadn't done it in this thread as i had intended this to be a discussion for more open minded people, for people that watch something like Ex Machina, a film very much in the vein of Devs, and think of the possibilities, that dare to dream instead of simply writing something off because they can't think beyond tomorrow.

 

I would argue that you're trolling us, because you keep pushing the same "but what if magic?" line on a technical forum. This isn't about thinking beyond tomorrow, its about several very hard limits in several different disciplines that prevent it from ever being a possibility. These are known unknowns. Certainly, our knowledge of physics and computer science is iterative, but a new paradigm doesn't completely upend then previous one, merely describe it with more clarity. That's why "thinking beyond tomorrow" just doesn't apply here, and no amount of wishing will alter physics to permit the hypothesis to work.

Don't believe us? How about a famous professor of theoretical physics? (or does he have no imagination too?)

 

Who made you king and master, did you start this thread, since when can people not discuss what may or may not be possible in the future, honestly you sound like all those people that have gone before you who claimed somethings not possible only to be proven wrong.

And don't pull that "technical forum" rubbish or "magic" claim because you sound like the sort of person who poo-pooed anyone who dared to suggest SSD's would be common place, that we'd have 15TB HHD, have more than 512Mb in system memory, or on less computer related stuff people insinuated anyone who thought we'd be driving electric cars was trolling because physics means there's no way to put all the batteries in a car.

I knew i should've just left this thread alone when i said i was going to as it's clear you and others are only interested in stopping people from discussing the sort of what if's, maybe's, and other existential questions raised by films like Ex Machina and Devs raise, which honestly i find surprising considering you said "Alex Garland is one of my favourite writer/directors", it seems some people want others to only talk about what they find acceptable.

Actually come to think of it i think I'll just leave these forums alone altogether as all anyone ever seems interested in here is proving themselves right, someone else wrong, and generally posting in a passive aggressive manner, there's enough crap in the world ATM without having to subjected to it on here.

 

Don't rage quit on my account. I'm not worth it, really.

You wanted to talk about the possibility of whether or not we could simulate the universe in a computer, and we did, with everyone including theoretical physicists (albeit in absentia) stating why it wasn't possible. The reason why it's not possible is actually a really interesting discussion...just as, if not moreso, than some sci-fi premise, but you resisted that discussion and accused everyone of lacking imagination because they couldn't buy in it. While you started the thread you didn't go along with the discussion and so people started telling you why they disagreed with the premise with increasing assertiveness.

 

One for the Thunderdome?