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?

 

 

In looking at excitations, you can measure temperature by looking at the distribution of populations in the excited states. That's fine for steady-state systems. A population inversion (more excited state atoms than ground state, or some other lower-energy state), which is not steady-state, yields a negative temperature. As you are changing the population distribution, you pass through infinite temperature. But it's because the assumption that you be in steady-state (or close to it) is being ignored. If you measured the KE distribution of the system, it would give a different (and reasonable) answer.

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?

 

No there is no particle of time or space.

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.

It's a matter of framing the problem. Ever every person kills one person, everyone dies. If you kill at most one person, then the answer will be different. Without more details, you can't really come up with an answer.

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:

Testing the hypothesis physically[edit][/size]
A long-shot method to test one type of simulation hypothesis was proposed in 2012 in a joint paper by physicists Silas R. Beane from the University of Bonn (now at the University of Washington, Seattle), and Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage from the University of Washington, Seattle.^%5B10%5D Under the assumption of finite computational resources, the simulation of the universe would be performed by dividing the continuum space-time into a discrete set of points. In analogy with the mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists run today to build up nuclei from the underlying theory of strong interactions (known as Quantum chromodynamics), several observational consequences of a grid-like space-time have been studied in their work. Among proposed signatures is an anisotropy in the distribution of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, that, if observed, would be consistent with the simulation hypothesis according to these physicists (but, of course, would not prove that the universe is a simulation). A multitude of physical observables must be explored before any such scenario could be accepted or rejected as a theory of nature.^%5B11%5D

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?

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?

That's exactly right Sensei...

"In games, engine doesn't render entire world around players, where nobody look.
Just what player see at moment is processed and rendered."

But consider that...

In Quantum Mechanics all possible outcomes or worlds are encoded in the wave function, but only as probabilities.
But when someone looks ( an interaction occurs ), the wave function collapses and reality is 'rendered'.

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.

That depends on what exactly is simulated.

 

In games, engine doesn't render entire world around players, where nobody look.

Just what player see at the moment is processed and rendered.

After rotating head, moving body to other place, it's gone, not processed.

 

Technique f.e. back-face culling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-face_culling

saves 50% of CPU/GPU time straight away even from what is directly in front of head of player.

 

To have very large landscape game engine splits them to blocks. Say we have 100x100 blocks.

1 block is what player can see by naked eye.

If we have f.e. 1 million polygons per block. All blocks have 10 bln polygons. But player can see just 1 mln where he/she is at the moment. 10,000 speed up.

Everything to limit needed calculations.

 

Things like fusion in star, does not need to be simulated to every particle, as nobody will observe these reactions with such detail.

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:

 

 

Computability of physics[edit]

Further information: Computational universe theory and The Emperor's New Mind

A decisive refutation of any claim that our reality is computer-simulated would be the discovery of some uncomputable physics, because if reality is doing something that no computer can do, it cannot be a computer simulation. (Computability generally means computability by a Turing machine. Hypercomputation (super-Turing computation) introduces other possibilities which will be dealt with separately.) In fact, known physics is held to be (Turing) computable,^[14] but the statement "physics is computable" needs to be qualified in various ways, as a recent result^[15] shows.

Before symbolic computation, a number, thinking particularly of a real number, one with an infinite number of digits, was said to be computable if a Turing machine will continue to spit out digits endlessly, never reaching a "final digit".^[16] This runs counter, however, to the idea of simulating physics in real time (or any plausible kind of time). Known physical laws (including those of quantum mechanics) are very much infused with real numbers and continua, and the universe seems to be able to decide their values on a moment-by-moment basis. As Richard Feynman put it:^[17]

"It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypotheses that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities".

The objection could be made that the simulation does not have to run in "real time".^[18] It misses an important point, though: the shortfall is not linear; rather it is a matter of performing an infinite number of computational steps in a finite time.^[19]

Note that these objections all relate to the idea of reality being exactly simulated. Ordinary computer simulations as used by physicists are always approximations.

These objections do not apply if the hypothetical simulation is being run on a hypercomputer, a hypothetical machine more powerful than a Turing machine.^[20] Unfortunately, there is no way of working out if computers running a simulation are capable of doing things that computers in the simulation cannot do. The laws of physics inside a simulation and those outside it do not have to be the same, and simulations of different physical laws have been constructed.^[21] The problem now is that there is no evidence that can conceivably be produced to show that the universe is not any kind of computer, making the simulation hypothesis unfalsifiable and therefore scientifically unacceptable, at least by Popperian standards.^[22]

All conventional computers, however, are less than hypercomputational, and the simulated reality hypothesis is usually expressed in terms of conventional computers, i.e. Turing machines.

Roger Penrose, an English mathematical physicist, presents the argument that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. Penrose hypothesizes that quantum mechanics plays an essential role in the understanding of human consciousness. He sees the collapse of the quantum wavefunction as playing an important role in brain function. (See consciousness causes collapse).

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?

At some point it's ok to just say "I don't know" ...

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.

 

Didn't intend to suggest otherwise. But it is quite possible to prove the existence of something. Especially very big and powerful things like elephants and suns. Though not gods it seems.

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.

A manifestation of our ego. Our desires, wants. We create this God in our heads who is this perfect and powerful person, something which humans crave to some extent. We imagine a perfect paradise with no problems or flaws, which we are flawed and face troubles throughout life. Basically, a blanket for our flaws and insecurities.

 

Don't get me wrong, its possible there is a god, but if there was we obviously have had no contact as there is no proof we have. I hope there is a god, as it would suck to just stop existing. But I believe I only prove my own point in the end.

 

Honestly, I try to stay away from religion and just live life.

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.

 

 

Well then why worry about where it came from or where it went... ?

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

And Im a christian, and according to the bible, aka my culture, the death penalty is wrong. No argument, its wrong according to it. Now personally, I don't really know. Maybe ethically its wrong, but then again it depends on what your ethics are. If you think that killing someone in cold blood, in a horrific way, deserves death, then your ethics are fine with it.

LOL

OK, thanks for all your ideas everyone, please keep them coming!

Delta1212 - I get what you're saying, that there is only so much water on Earth and there isn't enough to flood all the land (or a large part of it). But can anyone envisage a situation where the very physical molecular structure of rainfall water is altered (by chemical pollutants for instance), making the water denser (if that is the right word) so that it physically occupies more space than it normally would (e.g. a rainstorm of 1 cubic litre of water per hectare would be the equivalent of, say, 10 cubic litres of water)?

I know this is very far-fetched, but could it theoretically happen, and if so, under what circumstances? Is it conceivable that man-made contaminants could change rainfall in this way (if clouds contained some kind of a gas or crystalline substance created by pollution which in turn brought about this "mutation"?)

 

Thanks for all your considered and imaginative responses!

You'd have to change physics not chemistry.

You could melt all of the rock and let it slide into the ocean. If the earth were a solid with no "bumps", the water would lie on top of it. But in the present configuration of the earth, no.

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 that's along the lines of a pretty good suggestion though. A hitherto undetected ice asteroid field takes on the Earth in a great snowball fight. A real meteor "shower".

 

Assuming it is steady and unrelenting until it floods the Earth, Everest included, my quick back of the envelope calculation says it would take about 5 weeks and 5 days.

I think he's looking for a scientific discovery causing it. So, space mining destabilizing the configuration.

I just thought of this today. Could not find anything about. If Greenland and South Pole glaciers melted. Would there be any effect on the planet with the weight displacement? Because I heard if Greenland glaciers melted oceans would rise 10 ft. alone? Thanks

 

 

What has got to do with the premise of the earth being completely covered by water?

Use your imagination ,it's for science FICTION.

Ok. A look from a different point of view is that God is an all knowing all loving god, sitting in heaven watching and waiting for his time. He sees the future and the past, he was forever and will be forever. When his time comes the book of revelations will start. After that,a new heaven and a new earth will be created, and all peoples who's name was recorded in the book of life get to go to heaven.

 

And for me mammals sake, I hope one day his name will sit in the book of life, so that he avoids the suffering that will ensue.

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?