6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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.

But what does it mean to have a working QC? What programming do you do with qubits, and how many of them do you have?

And how is (or just is) the problem you want to solve one that a QC does well? QC is not synonymous with “really powerful computer” it’s one that is potentially really powerful at solving specific tasks.

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

but if the person interacts with it, it is a genuine world.

Anyone who 'thinks' they understand Quantum Mechanics will agree with you.

Quantum Mechanics tells us the 'world' consists only of time evolving wave functions of probability amplitudes, in a superposition of states; IOW, no local reality.
It is only when these wave functions interact, or we make an observation, that they collapse to single states and we perceive that as 'reality'.

You don't think QM is a simulation, do you ?

19 hours ago, swansont said:

But what does it mean to have a working QC? What programming do you do with qubits, and how many of them do you have?

And how is (or just is) the problem you want to solve one that a QC does well? QC is not synonymous with “really powerful computer” it’s one that is potentially really powerful at solving specific tasks.

I wondered if a working QC could calculate a more accurate start point, for a weather computer to calculate the simulation.

Edited June 27Jun 27 by dimreepr

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I wondered if a working QC could calculate a more accurate start point, for a weather computer to calculate the simulation.

AFAIK, the two main issues are computation power and data. You extrapolate from the data (temperature, pressure, etc) in a cell of some size and calculate how they would evolve based on the effects on the neighboring cells. A more precise prediction means using smaller cells and possibly smaller time increments, but now you need data from more weather stations. Another limiting factor is data uncertainty, because that error propagates through each step of the calculation, and the equations are nonlinear, so small errors can propagate to become large ones.

A QC is not inherently more powerful, though it’s possible that there are elements of the algorithm that a QC would do more efficiently, but that doesn’t give you more weather stations, (including weather balloons to get data from above the ground and you need it on and over the ocean) nor does it solve the problem of data precision and uncertainty, which could be worse if you are doing more calculations.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

AFAIK, the two main issues are computation power and data. You extrapolate from the data (temperature, pressure, etc) in a cell of some size and calculate how they would evolve based on the effects on the neighboring cells. A more precise prediction means using smaller cells and possibly smaller time increments, but now you need data from more weather stations. Another limiting factor is data uncertainty, because that error propagates through each step of the calculation, and the equations are nonlinear, so small errors can propagate to become large ones.

A QC is not inherently more powerful, though it’s possible that there are elements of the algorithm that a QC would do more efficiently, but that doesn’t give you more weather stations, (including weather balloons to get data from above the ground and you need it on and over the ocean) nor does it solve the problem of data precision and uncertainty, which could be worse if you are doing more calculations.

My understanding of the problem is about where to start the calculation, rather than the lack of data; I'm not saying extra data can't improve the simulations accuracy.

What I'm wondering is, can a QC bridge the obvious data gap that is reality...

On 6/26/2025 at 1:10 PM, MigL said:

You don't think QM is a simulation, do you ?

I think it means design.

But we were talking science fiction in another thread. A book that is science fiction and has real science with somewhat good storytelling is

https://www.amazon.com/Planiverse-Computer-Contact-Two-Dimensional-World/dp/0387989161

This book is about contact with a different world.

19 hours ago, Trurl said:

I think it means design.

By whom, for what?

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

By whom, for what?

That is a good question. I think the answer varies personal to person. It could be religious, but doesn’t have to be. The book I mentioned is about observing another world. If a god designed the world it would seem that he created a simulation. But if you live in the world you are an observer and it is very much real. So how does a simulated world differ from a “real world?”

The whole idea of AI and quantum computers seems like scientists building gods. I know the science isn’t there yet. That is just my assessment. Let’s build something that can manipulate the universe. What could go wrong?

3 hours ago, Trurl said:

If a god designed the world it would seem that he created a simulation.

I don’t see how that follows

3 hours ago, Trurl said:

But if you live in the world you are an observer and it is very much real. So how does a simulated world differ from a “real world?”

That’s the big question, now isn’t it?