Can we predict our future?

[mohannikam19]

One of the key things, to know on how to predict the future is the mechanism, we would use to do so. Let’s consider an example of predicting something basic. Let’s say, I want to predict what is the result of (2+2) for that, we may use a calculator, or a computing device or our brain itself… but, what we’re goanna do, in order to predict this simple calculation is that we would introduce a faster computing device, which is performing that same calculation, and put the result before than slower calculator (or any other device).

But, for predicting our future, we need to simulate everything that has happened after the beginning of the universe, up to the present, and continue the simulation to get to know our future. But here arises a paradox.

To justify our past, and then to predict the future, we need to feed all the laws of nature into a supercomputer, and allow it to process them, to simulate, at faster speed than they had occurred. If a supercomputer does that and simulating the past, it reaches the present, there arises a problem, that now there is another same supercomputer in simulated version of the universe. So now, to proceed simulating further, the supercomputer would need to predict its own computations that is work faster than itself, which is certainly impossible.

Hence, there cannot be any computing device, which can predict our future with certainty.

[Veluz]

Well, that's an interesting thought. But as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle suggests we cannot determine the position/momentum of a particle, so even if we had this kind of supercomputer we would not be able to predict the exact future.

[mohannikam19]

Well, that's an interesting thought. But as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle suggests we cannot determine the position/momentum of a particle, so even if we had this kind of supercomputer we would not be able to predict the exact future.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

If the velocity of the electron is at first known, and the position then exactly measured, the position of the electron for times previous to the position measurement may be calculated. For these past times, δ

p

δ

q

is smaller than the usual bound. (Heisenberg 1930, p. 15)

Indeed, Heisenberg says: "the uncertainty relation does not hold for the past".

[swansont]

The "paradox" here is one of equivocation. Predict ≠ predict with absolute certainty.

[Sensei]

Quantum world is full for randomness and probabilities.

 

I will give you example:

laser beam is pointed to white diffuse wall in room.

Anybody can see dot regardless of his/her position or angle in room.

Why?

Because there is send billions of billions photons per second.

And each of them reflected with slightly different angle with pretty much equal probability in the all directions.

If probability would be slightly different, one person would see more photons (brighter spot), than other person (darker spot for him).

And this happens if surface is mirror. Person on path of reflected laser beam will see majority of photons (and perhaps damage eyes).

 

Supercomputer will not be able to even predict where single photon will go after being reflected, and you're dreaming about simulating whole Universe..

Edited March 10, 2015 by Sensei

[pavelcherepan]

OK then. Here's some thought: yes, going by uncertainty principle we can not predict anything, only as a probability. But on macroscopic scale, where QM effects are negligible and if we somehow find out the initial state of the Universe in a moment of time after QM effects were predominant, i.e. after Dark Ages and formation of stars and galaxies. Then would we be able to model and the evolution of Universe on a macroscopic scale from that time forward? Would we then not be able to predict future to some extent? Again, we're talking here only for the macroscopic scale.

[Mordred]

Well we can take currently known and we'll studied dynamics and make probable predictions with the assumption that those known relations are not going to change.

 

One example is based on today's rate of expansion, we can predict how much it should expand tomorrow. This may or may not actually occur, however most likely it will. The light cone link in my signature is a calculator that does just that.

 

It takes today's rate of expansion, and other pertinent information, then calculates how much the universe will expand, in the future. Up to 80 billion years into the future.

 

However this is based on current datasets. We could discover tomorrow, Hubbles constant has significantly changed value.

[md65536]

 

To justify our past, and then to predict the future, we need to feed all the laws of nature into a supercomputer, and allow it to process them, to simulate, at faster speed than they had occurred. If a supercomputer does that and simulating the past, it reaches the present, there arises a problem, that now there is another same supercomputer in simulated version of the universe. So now, to proceed simulating further, the supercomputer would need to predict its own computations that is work faster than itself, which is certainly impossible.

Interesting idea but I think you have to state your assumptions, and there are a few, including:

- A part of the system can't be predicted without simulating the whole system (everything is connected, and there is no way to begin from a known intermediate state).

- The universe is perfectly deterministic to computable precision (which contradicts current theory as others mentioned), but also cannot be computed in parallel. Computing "more" requires "faster", which might not hold true. You would need to specify the limitations of your imaginary simulator, not just assume it is the simplest of systems.

 

Why would the computer have to simulate the results of its own calculations? In your calculator example, the calculator calculates that 2+2=4. It would not need to simulate the workings of itself to know that the simulated calculator will also produce 4, since it already knows it calculated that.

 

 

 

Or to put it another way... you're saying that suppose a machine is able to predict a future state X, you want to show that this will derive a contradiction.

Suppose state Y is the state of the present after that prediction has been made, and we assume that X depends on Y (simulating the results of the simulation is required).

Well that gives a solution to the paradox right there:

We must also assume that the simulator is inside the universe and is much smaller than the universe (or otherwise there's no point).

Thus to simulate the simulator should require much less processing than to simulate the rest of the universe.

So all you need to do is make the simulator more powerful than it needs to be to simulate up to the present. For example say that 90% of the simulator is simulating the rest of the universe, and 5% is simulating the simulator, and the rest is idle, then if could set it up so that the idle part of the simulator has only an easily predicted effect, then that part doesn't need to be simulated.

 

 

However I think that there are too many assumptions that are left to choice. Since you're not describing the mechanism for simulating the universe, it doesn't make sense to both claim that it can be done and make arbitrary restrictions. You could as easily make up a rule that the idle parts of any simulator all affect the future as much as anything else does and needs to be simulated, but then this is all just a bunch of made-up rules about what's possible and what's not possible.

 

 

Edit: Trying to clear my brain fog, I think perhaps you might be right. In my example, even if "simulating the simulator" can be done efficiently, it still assumes that in simulating state X, it first simulates the state Y, at which point the prediction of X is already known in the simulation. So it doesn't make sense that the simulator doesn't yet know state X, but the virtual simulator does. If you also assume that no state can be simulated without knowing what that state is, then I think you're right. On the other hand if you suppose that it's possible to simulate the simulation of state X, and to know all possible effects of that without having to know what X actually is! (OMG confusing), then it could be conceivable to simulate the effects of simulating X on the virtual computer, and then continue on to calculate X on the real computer.

 

Well at the least I think you've proposed a good mind bender of a thought experiment.

Edited March 11, 2015 by md65536

[Strange]

OK then. Here's some thought: yes, going by uncertainty principle we can not predict anything, only as a probability. But on macroscopic scale, where QM effects are negligible and if we somehow find out the initial state of the Universe in a moment of time after QM effects were predominant, i.e. after Dark Ages and formation of stars and galaxies. Then would we be able to model and the evolution of Universe on a macroscopic scale from that time forward? Would we then not be able to predict future to some extent? Again, we're talking here only for the macroscopic scale.

 

Even ignoring quantum effects, chaos theory tells us that many (purely deterministic) systems cannot be predicted for more than a limited time into the future (one example is weather a simpler one is a double pendulum).

[swansont]

 

Even ignoring quantum effects, chaos theory tells us that many (purely deterministic) systems cannot be predicted for more than a limited time into the future (one example is weather a simpler one is a double pendulum).

 

Even with a double pendulum, there are predictions you can make. If the arms are of length L1 and L2, I can predict the mass at the end will not be further than L1+L2 from the pivot point.

 

The issue here is one of a false dichotomy between predicting everything with absolute certainty, and predicting nothing. The reality is a matter of how accurate and precise our predictions can be.

[Bill Angel]

My understanding is that scientists can use supercomputers to successfully simulate the explosion of a hydrogen bomb. A bomb like that is a complex system in which quantum effects play an important role.

[Delta1212]

My understanding is that scientists can use supercomputers to successfully simulate the explosion of a hydrogen bomb. A bomb like that is a complex system in which quantum effects play an important role.

There is a difference between being able to simulate something, and being able to perfectly predict a specific outcome.

 

I can simulate a dice roll. That doesn't mean I'm going to win at craps.

[Wso]

Great question. Something to consider is how one would simulate the entire universe, using what I'm assuming amounts to less then all the energy in the universe. You must use less then the total energy, because you and any other people relying on this machine would surely be made of energy. Thus the following question arrises: can X particles predict X + Y other particles (where Y is any integer above 0)? If not, the machine is impossible. However a close approximation may be made which could drastically cut down on the required energy to make such a machine.

[swansont]

There is a difference between being able to simulate something, and being able to perfectly predict a specific outcome.

 

I can simulate a dice roll. That doesn't mean I'm going to win at craps.

 

But you can predict the outcome of many rolls. You can't predict a specific roll being a seven, but you know 1/6 of the rolls will be sevens. Thermodynamics/statistical mechanics, for example, is one area where we have similar success: we don't know what one particular atom will do, but we know how a collection of atoms will behave.

[Commander]

 

But you can predict the outcome of many rolls. You can't predict a specific roll being a seven, but you know 1/6 of the rolls will be sevens. Thermodynamics/statistical mechanics, for example, is one area where we have similar success: we don't know what one particular atom will do, but we know how a collection of atoms will behave.

 

You said : "we don't know what one particular atom will do, but we know how a collection of atoms will behave"

 

How will they behave ? Explain how they will behave and give Proof and Evidence.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Commander

[Strange]

 

You said : "we don't know what one particular atom will do, but we know how a collection of atoms will behave"

 

How will they behave ? Explain how they will behave and give Proof and Evidence.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/idegas.html

[swansont]

 

You said : "we don't know what one particular atom will do, but we know how a collection of atoms will behave"

 

How will they behave ? Explain how they will behave and give Proof and Evidence.

 

The field of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics explains this, as I mentioned. Also fluid dynamics. For specifics you can take some physics classes or at least pick up a textbook.

 

I assume you have or know of air conditioners, heat pumps, refrigerators, and/or airplanes. They work, in a predictable fashion.

[Sensei]

 

You said : "we don't know what one particular atom will do, but we know how a collection of atoms will behave"

 

How will they behave ? Explain how they will behave and give Proof and Evidence.

 

Plug heating element to power source, put to water with mass m, and initial temperature T₀

Electricity measure by ampere meter and volt meter, with stopwatch,

You will have U, I, and t

Energy from heating element will be E=U*I*t=P*t

and it'll be used to increase energy of water.

 

1 calorie is 4.1855 J/g*K

 

And you have equation:

m*4.1855*(T₁-T₀)=U*I*t

 

T₁ - final temperature of water after t seconds.

 

One of the simplest thermodynamics experiments..

[swansont]

 

Plug heating element to power source, put to water with mass m, and initial temperature T₀

Electricity measure by ampere meter and volt meter, with stopwatch,

You will have U, I, and t

Energy from heating element will be E=U*I*t=P*t

and it'll be used to increase energy of water.

 

1 calorie is 4.1855 J/g*K

 

And you have equation:

m*4.1855*(T₁-T₀)=U*I*t

 

T₁ - final temperature of water after t seconds.

 

One of the simplest thermodynamics experiments..

 

Or just mixing two volumes of water at different temperatures and being able to predict the final temperature. Or how much a volume of ice will cool a volume of liquid down, or…

[Commander]

Scientifically and from a Truth / Facts point of view if you know the PRESENT MOMENT 100% in all its States, interconnections,networking,forces and factors going on you can predict what will happen in the very next moment including how the coin will turn at the end of the Toss ! Thereafter Future can be predicted MOMENT BY MOMENT taking into consideration all Happenings of the ensued moment ! However this task is NOT COMPUTABLE !

 

[Robittybob1]

Scientifically and from a Truth / Facts point of view if you know the PRESENT MOMENT 100% in all its States, interconnections,networking,forces and factors going on you can predict what will happen in the very next moment including how the coin will turn at the end of the Toss ! Thereafter Future can be predicted MOMENT BY MOMENT taking into consideration all Happenings of the ensued moment ! However this task is NOT COMPUTABLE !

 

By the time you had discovered all the facts of the present moment, time would have moved on. You would never keep up to date knowing "the PRESENT MOMENT 100% in all its States, interconnections,networking,forces and factors..."

[Commander]

By the time you had discovered all the facts of the present moment, time would have moved on. You would never keep up to date knowing "the PRESENT MOMENT 100% in all its States, interconnections,networking,forces and factors..."

Yes, that is what I meant !

[Sensei]

Scientifically and from a Truth / Facts point of view if you know the PRESENT MOMENT 100% in all its States, interconnections,networking,forces and factors going on you can predict what will happen in the very next moment including how the coin will turn at the end of the Toss ! Thereafter Future can be predicted MOMENT BY MOMENT taking into consideration all Happenings of the ensued moment ! However this task is NOT COMPUTABLE !

 

 

Coin example is not really random indeed. It just appears to human random, because of lack of data.

 

But what with example from #5 post? Show how you control direction of reflected photon. So they're not randomly scattered.

[swansont]

Without nailing down what is meant by prediction, there's no point to the discussion. We can't predict everything to arbitrary precision, and I don't think anyone has argued that we can.

[mohannikam19]

There are questions, being raised, that we currently cannot predict the behavior of universe, with great certainty (due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) and quantum world is full of randomness.

I completely agree with these facts, but I have not stated that this supercomputer is currently possible to create, or we are having all the laws of physics with us, at this moment, to feed in a computing device.
There may be future possibilities, that we may discover some theories, which may be able to determine exact positions, instead of probability, of a particle. For example, there is string theory...
In String theory, there are proposed some extra dimensions, rather than the 3, we are familiar with, currently (or may be even 4th as time). So, these extra dimensions might certainly predict our currently uncertain world.
Taking an example, on how limitations on dimensions may result in uncertainty, let us suppose an ant, laying on ground (2D- space). If we throw a ball upon the floor, the ant (bounded to look only on ground) will be only be able to see the ball, when it is hitting the ground. Even when ball is following all the laws of physics, ant will not be able to make predictions of the ball, looking on the same 2d plane...And ant will consider appearance of ball, random.
Hence, it is not at all necessary that what’s not possible currently, will be impossible forever… (may be, unless we have proof)
But, Even if world (even quantum world) becomes predictable, we will not able to compute our future, considering every aspect of universe...