In a recent topic about creating a computer simulation of the universe, which is obvious nonsense with our current technology. It got me thinking, assuming we manage to build a working quantum computer, would it be theoretically possible?

Just now, dimreepr said:

In a recent topic about creating a computer simulation of the universe, which is obvious nonsense with our current technology. It got me thinking, assuming we manage to build a working quantum computer, would it be theoretically possible?

Do you mean the measurement problem as stated in your title or do you mean could a q-computer simulate the universe ?

I am seriously disappointed with the Scientific American article

Scientific American

Quantum Theory's 'Measurement Problem' May Be a Poison Pi...

Solving a notorious quantum quandary could require abandoning some of science’s most cherished assumptions about the physical world

Which only makes the 'problem' worse.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Do you mean the measurement problem as stated in your title or do you mean could a q-computer simulate the universe ?

A bit of both, I suppose...

Just now, dimreepr said:

A bit of both, I suppose...

Why is the problem only with measurent ?

Or, if you prefer, why is there apparant;ly no problem when you don't measure?

When considering this, a good question to think about might be.

Say to have 1000m drum of rope of 1 tonne breaking load.

Say you cut 100 1 metre lengths from that rope.

If you measured the breaking load of all those 100 lengths what would you expect to happen ?

Wikipedia has an excellent and understandable explanation of the 'Measurement Problem', Dim.

"The wave function in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states. However, actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution of the wave function is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the system that is not obviously a consequence of Schrödinger evolution"

I like to think that the wave function proceeds in superposition of states until an interaction, or measurement, collapses the wave function to a single state, by destructively interfering with the wave function of whatever is doing the measurement/interaction.
After the measurement/interaction, the original wave function time evolves in a form, modified by the measuring/interacting wave function, with new possible directions, momenta, energies and possible positions.

This, in my mind, is consistent with 'no local reality'.

Don't create problems then you won't have to solve them.. ;)

Look at these mathematicians - they invent themselves more and more new problems (which are unsolvable), and then spend all their lives at taxpayers' expense "playing" in trying to solve them.. Instead of doing something useful..

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It got me thinking, assuming we manage to build a working quantum computer, would it be theoretically possible?

The worldwide media (with high-tech mostly) hype is that some quantum computer is the tool to solve all the world's problems.. It doesn't work like that..

33 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Don't create problems then you won't have to solve them.. ;)

Look at these mathematicians - they invent themselves more and more new problems (which are unsolvable), and then spend all their lives at taxpayers' expense "playing" in trying to solve them.. Instead of doing something useful..

The worldwide media (with high-tech mostly) hype is that some quantum computer is the tool to solve all the world's problems.. It doesn't work like that..

What mathematicians do you have in mind?

I sincerely recommend you this video

And these scientists talk about consciousness. People don't what this is.

But if someone preferes to live in a simulation, it is their free will.

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Why is the problem only with measurent ?

Or, if you prefer, why is there apparant;ly no problem when you don't measure?

When considering this, a good question to think about might be.

Say to have 1000m drum of rope of 1 tonne breaking load.

Say you cut 100 1 metre lengths from that rope.

If you measured the breaking load of all those 100 lengths what would you expect to happen ?

15 hours ago, MigL said:

Wikipedia has an excellent and understandable explanation of the 'Measurement Problem', Dim.

"The wave function in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states. However, actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution of the wave function is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the system that is not obviously a consequence of Schrödinger evolution"

I like to think that the wave function proceeds in superposition of states until an interaction, or measurement, collapses the wave function to a single state, by destructively interfering with the wave function of whatever is doing the measurement/interaction.
After the measurement/interaction, the original wave function time evolves in a form, modified by the measuring/interacting wave function, with new possible directions, momenta, energies and possible positions.

This, in my mind, is consistent with 'no local reality'.

Thanks guy's, so no to the measurement problem, which has similar implication for the simulation problem.

But with further thought, I wondered if a combination of both types of computer (in this context) could significantly extend, into the future, our ability to forecast the weather; my thoughts being a quantum computer could provide a finer measurment with which to start the computation.

13 hours ago, m_m said:

I sincerely recommend you this video

And these scientists talk about consciousness. People don't what this is.

But if someone preferes to live in a simulation, it is their free will.

I will watch it bc I'm a huge Assimov fan, but it's got nothing to do with the topic...

14 hours ago, Sensei said:

Don't create problems then you won't have to solve them.. ;)

Look at these mathematicians - they invent themselves more and more new problems (which are unsolvable), and then spend all their lives at taxpayers' expense "playing" in trying to solve them.. Instead of doing something useful..

The worldwide media (with high-tech mostly) hype is that some quantum computer is the tool to solve all the world's problems.. It doesn't work like that..

Have you secured your place in the bunker?

Edited June 24Jun 24 by dimreepr

From what I know quantum computers would be feasible for tasks such as factoring numbers, cryptography, and the like.

Not very suitable for emulating categorical thinking.

But all of this could change in a matter of years. Who knows.

On 6/23/2025 at 5:02 AM, dimreepr said:

In a recent topic about creating a computer simulation of the universe, which is obvious nonsense with our current technology. It got me thinking, assuming we manage to build a working quantum computer, would it be theoretically possible?

Given the aspects of brain function which are analog and not digital (though they do handshake with digital operations), I don't think our present computer architectures could get us to a robust simulation with conscious agents and all that. As Joigus says, that could all change in a few years.

And, btw, that video does seem to have some relevance to the thread, and being an Asimov fan from age eleven or so (and met the man several times in the Newton neighborhood in which we both lived, as well as stepping on his foot once in the coffee hour room of the Unitarian Church causing him to laugh) on a par with those panel members, I will watch it avidly. I note that one panelist is arguably the world's cutest physicist, Zoreh Davoudi. I also note that the AMoNH website does also provide transcripts, which might be a better way to home in on the meat of the discussion.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

but it's got nothing to do with the topic...

Well, they also discuss quantum computers, and this whole idea about a simulation.

Edited June 24Jun 24 by m_m

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

Given the aspects of brain function which are analog and not digital (though they do handshake with digital operations), I don't think our present computer architectures could get us to a robust simulation with conscious agents and all that. As Joigus says, that could all change in a few years.

And, btw, that video does seem to have some relevance to the thread, and being an Asimov fan from age eleven or so (and met the man several times in the Newton neighborhood in which we both lived, as well as stepping on his foot once in the coffee hour room of the Unitarian Church causing him to laugh) on a par with those panel members, I will watch it avidly. I note that one panelist is arguably the world's cutest physicist, Zoreh Davoudi. I also note that the AMoNH website does also provide transcripts, which might be a better way to home in on the meat of the discussion.

You lucky, lucky barsteward... 🙃

I watched it this morning and it's definately relevant, but to read a 2 hour conversation would take me about 2 weeks, so I'll wait for someone to slice the steak for me; cuz I'm disabled and it would be a kind thing to do.

23 hours ago, joigus said:

From what I know quantum computers would be feasible for tasks such as factoring numbers, cryptography, and the like.

Not very suitable for emulating categorical thinking.

But all of this could change in a matter of years. Who knows.

Indeed, just chewing the fat... 😋

On 6/23/2025 at 11:00 PM, m_m said:

But if someone preferes to live in a simulation, it is their free will.

How would you extracate yourself?

The blue pill just gets you hard...

Folks, I'm really glad you liked this video. :)

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

How would you extracate yourself?

No need.

"According to your faith let it be done to you", Matthew 9:29

This version of a simulation exists, and it has its justification. It didn't occur out of the blue, but for  some reason. And I believe the reason is the answer. Or in other words, why is there a reason for a simulation? However, it is there. And some people agree with it. I want to ask them: why are you agree with it?

As we can see it is a matter of beliefs.

3 hours ago, m_m said:

No need.

"According to your faith let it be done to you", Matthew 9:29

This version of a simulation exists, and it has its justification. It didn't occur out of the blue, but for  some reason. And I believe the reason is the answer. Or in other words, why is there a reason for a simulation? However, it is there. And some people agree with it. I want to ask them: why are you agree with it?

As we can see it is a matter of beliefs.

Moderator Note

This is a computer science discussion. Beliefs don’t enter into it, and preaching is against our rules.

Computer programmers pray all day long. “May the code finally work” ;)

Muslims would be embarrassed.. ;)

Edited June 25Jun 25 by Sensei

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How would you extracate yourself?

Take the red pill ...

On 6/24/2025 at 1:31 PM, m_m said:

Well, they also discuss quantum computers, and this whole idea about a simulation

Why would it be a simulation? In the Matrix the world is computer generated, but if the person interacts with it, it is a genuine world.

I argue a simulated world is a genuine world.

2 hours ago, Trurl said:

Why would it be a simulation? In the Matrix the world is computer generated, but if the person interacts with it, it is a genuine world.

I argue a simulated world is a genuine world.

If the world is genuine, how can it be simulated? I think, there is only one option: it is genuine, or it is simulated. Just..if there is a movie, it doesn't mean that this movie explains our world we live in. Our life!! Because if our world is simulated, then robots are alive, and we can't blame people for treating them like animate objects.

I found transcripts (thank you, TheVat) for the video above. N.D.Tyson asks James Gates

"So, Jim, I got to ask you something. Your discoveries of the checks—error-correcting code within the laws of physics themselves, at the depths that you’re researching them, what I wonder is we live in the age of IT, of information technology. So, we all have a certain fluency. So, it’s in our brains to think that way at some level. 

 Could it be that how the saying goes, if you’re a hammer then all your problems look like nails, and you solve them by hitting them. If now we are in an IT revolution, and you’re finding IT solutions to your problems, maybe it’s just the fad of the moment. And you’re forcing a solution that is either not real, or there’s a better one awaiting in a revolution that has yet to occur. "

I think, why do people think about a simulation at all?! If we have computers here, it doesn't mean that computer is "there"! Or that everything is information, or "everything is number".

It's like people extrapolate their representations of the world towards something they don't know. And adjust patterns of the Universe to one's ideas.

***

I apologize if it is off-topic.

Edited June 26Jun 26 by m_m

1 hour ago, m_m said:

If the world is genuine, how can it be simulated? I think, there is only one option: it is genuine, or it is simulated. Just..if there is a movie, it doesn't mean that this movie explains our world we live in. Our life!! Because if our world is simulated, then robots are alive, and we can't blame people for treating them like animate objects.

I found transcripts (thank you, TheVat) for the video above. N.D.Tyson asks James Gates

"So, Jim, I got to ask you something. Your discoveries of the checks—error-correcting code within the laws of physics themselves, at the depths that you’re researching them, what I wonder is we live in the age of IT, of information technology. So, we all have a certain fluency. So, it’s in our brains to think that way at some level. 

 Could it be that how the saying goes, if you’re a hammer then all your problems look like nails, and you solve them by hitting them. If now we are in an IT revolution, and you’re finding IT solutions to your problems, maybe it’s just the fad of the moment. And you’re forcing a solution that is either not real, or there’s a better one awaiting in a revolution that has yet to occur. "

I think, why do people think about a simulation at all?! If we have computers here, it doesn't mean that computer is "there"! Or that everything is information, or "everything is number".

It's like people extrapolate their representations of the world towards something they don't know. And adjust patterns of the Universe to one's ideas.

***

I apologize if it is off-topic.

Yes I think you and Degrasse Tyson raise a good point. All this "simulation" talk we seem to get does look to me very much like a fad caused by the new domination of our lives by IT-based products and services. Speaking as someone who never saw "The Matrix" and who has no social media presence (apart from 2 science forums), I have never understood what the fuss is about or seen any point in it.

Reverting to the thread topic, there are no quantum computers either. Nobody has found a way to prevent decoherence of entangled states produced in the quantity required by a computer using them. Quantum computing looks to me like yet another piece of IT hype, along with LLMs, cryptocurrency and Zuckerberg's metaverse.

Edited June 26Jun 26 by exchemist

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Reverting to the thread topic, there are no quantum computers either. Nobody has found a way to prevent decoherence of entangled states produced in the quantity required by a computer using them. Quantum computing looks to me like yet another piece of IT hype, along with LLMs, cryptocurrency and Zuckerberg's metaverse.

Well I did say in the OP, that I'm assuming we have a working Q computer, and my follow up question is more about creating a long range accurate weather forecast.

All this talk of living in a simulation is a pointless rabbit hole, even if we discover that we do, we'd be powerless to affect the process.

18 hours ago, MigL said:

Take the red pill ...

That's just the antidote for being hard, sometimes it hurts... 😉

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes I think you and Degrasse Tyson raise a good point. All this "simulation" talk we seem to get does look to me very much like a fad caused by the new domination of our lives by IT-based products and services. Speaking as someone who never saw "The Matrix" and who has no social media presence (apart from 2 science forums), I have never understood what the fuss is about or seen any point

The movie only clouds the issues, anyway, given its absurd premise that aliens would use our bodies for "batteries," while connecting our vatted bodies to a virtual reality. Plenty of science people have ranted about the gross inefficiencies and preposterous biophysics, so I'll leave it be. The storyline was really just a vehicle for cool martial arts sequences and people intoning pseudoprofundities.

I see a lot of the matrix stuff as a way to excuse dirty technology and eco degradation because, hey, we can all get ourselves back to the Garden by moving into a virtual world and ignore that icky old RW. We'll either be in cozy vats* underground or, far more efficient, uploaded and our biological shell discarded.

* Mine is really more cramped than cozy, don't believe the brochures.

4 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The movie only clouds the issues, anyway, given its absurd premise that aliens would use our bodies for "batteries," while connecting our vatted bodies to a virtual reality. Plenty of science people have ranted about the gross inefficiencies and preposterous biophysics, so I'll leave it be. The storyline was really just a vehicle for cool martial arts sequences and people intoning pseudoprofundities.

I see a lot of the matrix stuff as a way to excuse dirty technology and eco degradation because, hey, we can all get ourselves back to the Garden by moving into a virtual world and ignore that icky old RW. We'll either be in cozy vats* underground or, far more efficient, uploaded and our biological shell discarded.

* Mine is really more cramped than cozy, don't believe the brochures.

Ah yes, from your handle I imagine you must have a thorough grasp of all this.😀 But I'm intrigued by your view that it's about excusing environmental degradation because we can tell ourselves it's not real. That's a new angle.

But nothing to do with quantum computing and the measurement "problem" in QM............

Edited June 26Jun 26 by exchemist