dimreepr

Nope... Nope... All people are capable of the best and the worst of people, and evil is an abstract concept, so what's the question?

Sorry missed this: Hitler was a product of his culture; a culture that was under fiscal pressure and feared the future bc of it. It's so much more easy to believe that it's the poorest that are to blame. Like everyone, Hitler is ultimately responcible for his action's, despite the narcotics, if he's clever enough to lead his nation then he's able to decide to nasty rather than nice. I believe there's evidence that Jesus was an alcoholic before his rise to leadership and he famously decided to be nice.

Just lucky I guess... 😉

Well, at least I know that you're a Floyd fan; and a bitch bc now I've got to listen to 2112 too...

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...

The thing about science is, the more you learn, the less you understand and the more you like it. Just try to enjoy the journey my friend... 😉

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

How poor is your comprehension, that a single word 'does a fly by'? I even underlined the question, with a question mark.

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

Why?

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.

Prophecy is relatively easy, you're going to die; but I've gotta way to make the intervening knowledge understandable; we never learn from history,,,

How would you extracate yourself? The blue pill just gets you hard...

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. Indeed, just chewing the fat... 😋

I wonder what might happen when Trump, slowly, comes to understand; another Musk moment?

Why do you need to be right? Read on in my topic, I was wrong; if you want to discover something, try to understand why I don't care... 😉

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. I will watch it bc I'm a huge Assimov fan, but it's got nothing to do with the topic... Have you secured your place in the bunker?

A bit of both, I suppose...

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?

Nope, you haven't answered any of my question's, but you have convinced me not to bother reading more. Thanks for trying +1, but I don't think his idea has the logical consistency to be considered an hypothesis.

Indeed, the race to the bottom is accelerating... I have mixed feelings, mostly I hope Europe stays out of that particular race and aims more accurately at the top...

My apologies for the 'snark', but there's literally a wall of text before this conclusion "With this idea, a universe can be simulated by a simple evolved "machine", Computational limitations are gone." and another wall of text following. I'm dyslexic, so I see patterns of expression much more easily than a bloviated sentence, consequently when replying, my natural brevity can seem more confrontational than I intend. So let's at least meet half way, and you give me a reasonable synopsis of your idea, please...

What makes you think it would be useful? What computational limitation? Define "machine" please. These question's need to be answered with concise brevity, before I can be bothered to read the rest.

The end of time's has been predicted by just about every culture, in every generation since we learned how to paint on cave wall's; our generations prediction, seems a little more imminent, and a lot more germain to the facts. And it's got nothing to do with the Trump, in the way you're suggesting.

Indeed, it's not as if we ever learn from history, mostly bc the specific's don't quite match and therefore can be ignored, especially if there's money to be made...