Sorcerer

When is the state of a system not changing in regards to the system being defined as the universe? I had to Google "For thermodynamics, a thermodynamic state of a system is its condition at a specific time, that is fully identified by values of a suitable set of parameters known as state variables, state parameters or thermodynamic variables." Is anything actually in a steady state for more duration than our measuring tool? Can there be the same system conditions with different variable values? If so how could we differentiate between steady state and not?

How does this effect the practical limitations of us generating the maximum possible temperature? (As I see it #2 was the current limiting factor). Are we in steady state or close to it? (What's steady state)? What's the maximun KE? How is spin involved? Why does a population inversion give a negative temperature? (Doesn't that make you question the validity of the theory(asked without me understanding "steady state")?

Oh how does that work? To clarify; I mean if, "the universe is a simulation", not, "if we were to simulate a universe". I actually didn't use the word simulation on purpose because it conveys a sense of incompleteness. Perhaps to rephrase, if we had a processor which ran at the speed of light, could we simulate a part of the universe in real time. Ego predict the weather with 100% accuracy. Or everything in our galaxy?

I Googled and looked at the wiki, it's called "absolute hot" apparently. There's 3 main definitions there. 1. The Planck temperature, which has the value 1.416785(71)×1032 kelvin. (Which is what I was getting at I think) and is at a limit due to no theory of quantum gravity apparently. 2. The Hagedorn temperature. Where particle pair formation draws heat away from the area being heated, limiting it. As I understood it. 3."Quantum physics formally assumes infinitely positive or negative temperatures in descriptions of spin system undergoing population inversion from the ground state to a higher energy state by excitation with electromagnetic radiation. The temperature function in these systems exhibits a singularity, meaning the temperature tends to positive infinity, before discontinuously switching to negative infinity.[6] However, this applies only to specific degrees of freedom in the system, while others would have normal temperature dependency. If equipartitioning were possible, such formalisms ignore the fact that the spin system would be destroyed by the decomposition of ordinary matter before infinite temperature could be reached uniformly in the sample.[citation needed]" Could someone clarify #3 for me please?

I assume the hottest temperature the universe has ever contained was at the moment of the big bang. Is this possible to achieve again or beat in the current universe or would it be prevented by entropy? What is our best estimate of the hottest possible temperature?

Could the speed of light be said to be equivalent to the processor speed?

Wouldn't the minimum measurable interval of time and space, the Planck length/time , be considered the unit of time and of space? I know a unit isn't exactly a particle. However a photon is and it is our interactions with a photons properties that give these units. Therefore if photons are deemed to be real, by induction time and length should also be real.

Is it possible to have more than one flu at once, or more than one cold, or a cold and a flu at the same time? The reason I ask is because I came back from traveling recently with what I think is a cold ( although I don't recall ever having a flu in my life). Shortly after, (3 days), my 3 flatmates all got sick with the "flu", and one reckons his daughter previously had one, the other says his mate did. One of them went to the doctor and he said it's the flu. I'm also wondering if "man flu" is real. How does a GP know, apart from the level of complaining? Am I safe or should I quarantine myself from these flu babies? What medical tests are available to objectively measure if we have a cold or a flu?

Yes and there are vastly more scenarios. Could anyone do an example of all the possible outcomes for a small set of people, as in 10 which I started above. There's some mistakes in my examples above. The 6 outcomes are. 1. Everyone kills a partner or forms a circle and kills simultaneously = 0 alive. 2. Everyone lines up single file 10*1 and shoots the person in front = 1 alive 3. They pair up and as above 5*2 = 2 alive 4. There's 3 rows of 3 and 1 single 3*3+1 = 3 alive 5. Two rows of 4 and one of 2, 2*4+2 = 4 alive 6. Two rows of 5, 2*5 = 5 alive. It seems to me the answer lies in finding all the possible interger equations for the population and then working out a way to quickly calculate the resulting number of survivors. That'd be one way anyway. That is a better way of stating it.

As was shown in your sequential killing chain all that is needed is for someone to kill another who has already killed for the end population to be less than 50%. You can either kill a killer or a non-killer. The two extreme possibilities as I said in the OP are: 1) Half the population kill one other person who has not yet killed another. Result = 50% (minus 1 for odd numbered population) 2) The entire population kills another simultaneously. Be it lining up in pairs or in a circle, or any other crazy pattern. So you could imagine with n=10, all could from a line single file, 1*10, here 1 being the number of people in the row and 10 being the number of rows and the killing done in order from first to last, with r(resulting number of survivors)=1. Or go in pairs, 2*5, r=2. And then all other positive interfere equations which equal 10, 3*3+1 r=2 (3 rows of 3 with 1 remaining), 4*2+2 r=2 etc.

Of course there's time. The rule is that: everyone who is alive must kill only one other person or die in the process without killing anyone. In your 10 people problem time solves the conundrum, by use of the term "then". ie 9 kills 10 then 8 kills 9. But there's as many permutations, ie 10 kills 1 then 5 kills 10, or 2 and 3 kill 4 and 5 and 4 and 5 kill no one etc (or is there? are the permutations restricted?). In a n=10 population what is the most frequent number of survivors?

A friend and I were recently watching "The Purge", and the topic came up that if everyone in the world killed only 1 person that the world's population would be halved. I thought about this for a minute and realised mostly it would be reduced by more than half and that in the extreme people pairing off and simultaneously killing each other could reduce it to 0, while still fulfilling the criteria. My question is what would a probability distribution of this scenario look like. What would be the most likely percentage remaining alive? What is this kind of maths problem called? Edit: Feel free to use 7 billion as the world population size or go with any smaller size to show it. Because I'm lazy I used 3 people and it ends with 1/3 and you never want to shoot first lol.

No one has to do anything. That doesn't mean there isn't a right and wrong.

I want to point out that I'm not saying this universe is a simulation as that would most likely be unfalsifiable. However I found this in wiki... so maybe not: I just want to know if infinite simulations are possible. Sensei, does my question of your partial simulated universes, prevent an infinite number of simulations, or am I overlooking something? You suggest our universe is already a simplified one, but could the way our universe currently work be simplified further and would this enable an infinite amount of nested simulations? Or does this mean that nested simulations need not be simplified and still enable an infinite continuation of sims, since even our universe doesn't require complete "rendering"? While browsing the google search "simulated universe infinite" I found this video, about 1/2 an hour in, and still no answer to my question of if it can be infinite or not.

And these kind of simulated universes could be simulated infinitely within one another? At one point wouldn't the simulator not have enough information to gather from their surroundings to provide a simulation which works? I mean if there were 1 million rules that govern a universe and the first simulation cut that in half to 500,000 rules, so not simulating parts unseen, wouldn't at some point there not be enough rules for there to be a being that could continue the process? This is interesting, from wiki:

Yes, I too have had similar thoughts since I was young playing sim games, but it has become a mainstream idea recently and even less sci-fi with the advent of more powerful computing and the possibility that Moore's law is continuous and the possibility of functional quantum computers However, Sensei, do you think that the possible number of simulations could be infinite or must be finite? I think this could be answered by someone more knowledgeable than I, based on my premises. Maybe energy isn't infinitely divisible, or all possible future universe conditions provide an end point for where all sims will cease to function. Just because I don't know and you don't know, doesn't mean someone else doesn't know. I could probably figure it out myself, but I'm being lazy.... and also promoting discussion.

This topic over laps equally in physics and maths, but since physics is essentially applied maths, I thought it fit best here. My question is: 1) assume our universe isn't a simulation and it's physical laws are prerequisite to all simulations. 2) we create a simulated universes sometime in the future using a portion of this universes energy. 3) within that simulation, simulated beings eventually create a simulated universe of their own. 4)all simulations are modeled on the original physical laws. 5) this process is repeated in each subsequent simulation. Is there a physical (thermodynamic) limit to the number of possible universes or is it infinite? Consider: The sum to infinity of a geometric series (with a common ratio between 1 and -1). (1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16....) =1 The sum of the harmonic series (1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5+1/6...) That time is required for us and simulated beings to create a simulation, but time need not be set as our universe. For instance we could set time slower to conserve energy, e.g. the rate of time could be proportional to the energy content. The possible futures of our universe, heat death, crunch, bounce, rip. Aliens creating simulations, and/or we create multiple sims and subsequent sims do too. Premise 1 and 4, might be false and we are a simulation and our physical laws aren't the same as our parent sim (or original universe), but still ultimately dependent on those laws. I just thought this might be an interesting topic. It is a mix of science and speculation, move if you want. I think the original question can be answered using our current knowledge of science, but the considerations probably push it to speculation.

Because the question isn't answerable and therefore gibberish. cf ignostic Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God: The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term God is considered meaningless. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking What is meant by God? before proclaiming the original question Does God exist? as meaningless.

In order to prove the existence of something,first you must define what that something is. Hence my question. A definition of a god which is unprovable is unsatisfactory. It makes no sense to ask the question "do you believe in god" in this case. Why would it "suck" to stop existing. How could you have any feelings about it if you don't exist? Everything you were and are remains, reordered, your actions have a remaining causal influence on a part of time and space afterwards, including your offspring and your society. You don't cease to exist just not your consciousness.

You can't prove God doesn't exist, only because that's not how evidence works.

Sarcasm is beyond me.

https://www.writingclasses.com/toolbox/ask-writer/whats-the-difference-between-science-fiction-and-fantasy

LOL

You'd have to change physics not chemistry. A possible scientific dystopia could be created semi believably by a process similar to fracking where geothermal energy was attempted to be tapped along the coast. Resulting in magma from under the continental crust flowing onto the seabed. I think he's looking for a scientific discovery causing it. So, space mining destabilizing the configuration. Greenland and Antarctica would rise too. Use your imagination ,it's for science FICTION.

What's the point of existing if all existence has already happened. If God knows everything he knows who he created and is going to suffer. How is it loving to create something in the knowledge that you will inflict suffering on it? Also why does God have a gender?