reality ontology infinite universe quantum math

I apologize for not reading the whole thread yet and again if this is jazzband, but this fucking hit the spot for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5l0b2-0o

  On 4/4/2011 at 8:52 PM, GORDO said:

  On 4/4/2011 at 7:04 PM, kaini said:

gordo, what you seem to be implying is if you had a massively powerful supercomputer capable of storing the position, direction, and velocity of every atom or molecule in the universe, and an amazing 'theory of everything' to process their interactions, you could predict everything that would happen from that point onwards.

 

i strongly believe that isn't the case.

 

I don't know where you get the idea that this is what i'm implying. I'm not arguing for a deterministic universe. I'm arguing that in this universe statements such as "A is equal to A" are true. Maybe a more interesting question is how many rules does a computer need to simulate the universe?.

in order to simulate accurately? many more rules than we are aware of. if we're talking a real simulation, it's all or nothing. you either can or you can't. it's not like a model of the universe that lacks a ton of detail is a proper sim.

i believe the deterministic view is most likely, but that we don't have anywhere near enough "rules" at every level of reality, from micro-macroscopic.

of course, i think there are many many mysteries we have yet to uncover regarding gravity, time and dark shit.

it's the same idea as describing how a computer works to a cave man. we can't imagine the types of technological/scientific breakthroughs in the next 100, 1000 or 10000 years. quantum physics is the relative (lol) new kid on the block now, but what's next?