Could we ever simulate the earth via quantum computing at an atomic scale such that the humans in the simulation develop their own quantum computer?
I'm gonna be a little controversial here and say yes.Often, we think of a simulated universe as having absolutely every detail simulated at all times, whether those details are being observed or not. If this is the criteria for the simulation you're describing, then I'd say, no, we couldn't.But even in video games with persistent features and weather and all other dynamic elements, you don't typically don't run the entire world when there is nobody observing it. From an efficient resource usage perspective, you could have a simulation that, from the perspective of all the inhabitants therein, is as real as our world, right down to the last observed detail. Processing power can be saved by only simulating what needs to be simulated when it needs to be simulated.Also, keep in mind that a simulation can be accessed by the simulator outside of time as perceived by the simulated. So the level of detail can be increased retroactively, if needed, and the change would not be seen by the simulated.So if the goal is for some simulated beings to create a quantum computer, as long as you aren't simulating everything it could be done.Of course, as mentioned in other answers, just because a computer is a quantum computer doesn't mean it's more powerful. But theoretically, with a big enough computer (quantum or no) this could be done.
Can a quantum computer simulate an entire universe?
No. Because if entire universe can be simulated perfectly, future can be predicted with absolute certainty. Which supports the mechanistic view of this world, which happens to be wrong. Chaos theory suggests that tiny variations can lead to unimaginable changes in the longer run, and these tiny variations can't be taken in account at the first place while settings the initial conditions of simulation. So a quantum computer, however powerful, cannot be used to simulate an entire universe. It will never be in sync with our own universe. It will rather create a different universe.
Is there any evidence of the universe being a quantum computer? Is the hypothesis of a simulated universe really taken seriously by scientists?
Science, Simulated Universes and Computation…Science aims to build knowledge about nature based on experiments. So when scientists use language they have very precise definitions for things, and these things can be measured.The popular culture idea of “living in a simulation” is coming from confused use of language. There is no way to measure if you are living in a simulation since you would mesaure surrogate data but also bad use of the term since its not a simulation if it is reality and this idea is unrelated to computation since computation itself could just be a fantasy in this world. The idea of living in a simulation basically short circuits measurement, science, rational thinking and replaces it with something like God that can control the simulation.Science takes as a fundamental assumption that the external world exists and that we investigate it with our experiments. The world is not a fantasy or video game, it is real, and furthermore we can only measure a small part of it so it will also remain for the most part unknown and unmeasured to us.On the other hand the universe as a computer is a possible, valid hypothesis. It leaves you with a picture of being a huge computer in some alien’s server farm but this is not the idea. The idea is that maybe all of the matter that makes the world is engaged in a process that follows step by step simple rules giving rise to new outcomes. And the universe as a quantum computer would change this so that new outcomes are only probabilities not definites. We can easily say we live in a quantum computer, it doesn't really contradict any of our ideas about reality.Is there evidence we live in a quantum computer?yes we see quantum mechanics guide fundamental particle behavioryes we see the quantum state of the universe evolveWhat does it mean? It means you can’t know the outcome of each step of computation because quantum mechanics sets very complicated limits on how much you can know.Is this universe sized quantum computer simulating something?no since every time it runs it gives a different possible probable resultno since if it were simulating it wouldn't be reality so it contradics the whole point of a universe in first placeBut I am not a scientist…
Can quantum computing create artificial consciousness?
It's a fascinating question. It is not established that quantum mechanics is responsible for free will. There is evidence that free will as we think of it doe not even exist in any real sense. Take a look at the 1st link. It is also not clear that that free will is needed for consciousness. Maybe there are states of awareness in which no decisions can be made. I believe consciousness is an emergent property of very certain types of large scale organized complex processing such as occurs in large neutral networks such as our brains. With this in mind, I would say consciousness can be created with or without quantum computing. There is quite a bit of research already going on in these areas (e.g. see 2nd and 3rd links). One big problem is - how do you identify consciousness? For example how do you know I am not a very sophisticated data-processing machine writing this reply - but without consciousness? When you meet someone, how do you know they are conscious in the same way you are? There are no satisfactory tests in my opinion - and it is possible there never will/can be! Just my two pennyworth though.
Quantum Computing VS Memristors?
I really don't know much about memristor, but it appears to be some device that could possibly be used in a computer. What I do know a lot about is quantum computing. Quantum computing is not really a device or a technology. It is a mathematical formalism. The way I like to think of it is computing is like addition and subtraction. There are a lot of things you can do with addition and subtraction, but it is not necessarily the best tool for all math problems. Quantum computing is like introducing multiplication and devision into your mathematics. All the sudden, a lot of problems that used to be tough to do by addition are now very easy to do. However, other problems that are easy to do by addition are not any easier if you include multiplication. So quantum computing will not replace classical computing. It will simply add another level of operations that can be performed. And, as it turns out, there are very few computational problems that we know of that would work any better on a quantum computer than they would on a classical computer. In fact, the only ones are: factoring, unstructured search, and quantum simulation. For all other problems, a classical computer will likely be as good as a quantum computer. I doubt you care about any of those three problems, so you probably will not greatly benefit from a quantum computer. Now, let's say we have the math of quantum computing, we still need a device that can perform that math. That, unfortunately, is a very difficult thing to achieve. It may take us several decades before we figure out how to do large scale quantum computing, if we ever figure it out. Right now we can do extremely small scale quantum computing (like factoring the number 15... which we don't need a quantum computer for), but getting to large scale is a huge challenge. So, to answer you question, quantum computers will: 1) NOT come out in 5 to 15 years 2) NOT replace regular computer 3) NOT help with most problems personal computer users would care about The reason we, as a society, should care at all about quantum computers is: 1) they can be used to crack cryptography schemes (this relates to factoring) 2) the technology needed to make a quantum computer will be extremely useful for a large range of other scientific and technologic fields, such as precision measurement.
What advancements will quantum computing create?
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL THE PEOPLES WORLDWIDE!!!! HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!Hmmm Another similar question.QC can be faster than normal computer only to certain tasks (important tasks, must say, like factoring and list searching). Any black box methods are faster using QC if the normal computer does use the same approach, ie, the black box approach (deterministic polynomial time = n).Considering…[math]{\sqrt{{n}} \in \N}[/math]That's like being shocked. Finally! Victory with Latex!!! :-)Thus QC is probably faster whenever both computers use a black box approach to solve complex and non trivial deterministic problems…However you must understand that it is true only considering black box methods in both type of computers. Hence using well known methods based on well known problems the efficacy of both computer types is identical with few important exceptions already cited.Nevertheless we must stand that QC is the most advanced type of physically conceivable computer, ie, after QC outbreak there will be no more further more advanced computers.Good day to all quorans!!Russian physicists discover a new approach for building quantum computers
Will Quantum Computers be faster at making graphic simulations and rendering?
Speculation such as required here calls for searching the NIST Quantum Algorithm Zoo for algorithms.Quantum algorithms for topological and geometric analysis of big data by Seth Lloyd, Silvano Garnerone and Paolo Zanardi is the only one I found:Extracting useful information from large data sets can be a daunting task. Topological methods for analyzing data sets provide a powerful technique for extracting such information. Persistent Homology is a sophisticated tool for identifying such topological features -- connected components, holes, or voids -- and for determining how such features persist as the data is viewed at different scales. This paper provides quantum algorithms for calculating Betti number in persistent homology, and for finding eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the combinatorial Laplacian. The algorithms provide an exponential speedup over classical algorithms for topological data analysis.That this is the most advanced image processing concept in the library, suggests that to date there have been few inspirations on this subject.The issue with quantum computing for general graphic simulations and rendering is that its power lies with superimposing input data. In instances for graphics, the capability needed is with dense arrays representing the image. Barring second and third order major advances, having a 2000x2000 qubit array is far into the future.
What is the probability that the universe is a computer simulation?
Elon Musk’s argument: “the probability that this universe is base reality and not a computer simulation is one in a billion” is a sound and logical argument. (If you’re not aware of his full argument, google the video)However, the argument seems to lack an understanding of meta-probability. Understanding meta-probabilities allows us to better contextualize/interpret the argument.A quick example:1. What is the probability that a fair coin toss results in heads? 50%2. If you are told a red team is playing a blue team at soccer this afternoon, and you are asked to predict the result - what is the probability that the blue team will win? 50%3. If you are now told that the “blue team” is the French national soccer team, and the “red team” is made up of local school children, what is the probability that the blue team will win?…. Now that we have more information, it’s no longer 50%… it’s now more like 99.999%What’s going on here? Whilst in examples 1. and 2. both probabilities are 50% at face-value, they are actually quite different. The problem stems from the fact that when stating a probability, the uncertainty of the probability is rarely stated. The reality, when comparing the probabilities of a fair coin toss with a random soccer game (1. and 2.) looks like this:As you can see above, whilst both probabilities are stated as 50%, the meta-probabilities are shown by the curves. The curves reveal that the coin toss result is known to be a 50% chance fairly accurately, but the soccer game result is known to be 50% with a large amount of uncertainty.In example 3. we acquire more information about the teams playing, and this allows us to make a better prediction of the result. In other words: The less information we have about the system/process we are trying to predict, the greater the uncertainty in our probabilities.So whilst I agree that: “with the information we have at present, it seems logical that there is a one in a billion chance that we are not in a simulation”, the information we have about the universe is but a speck of the total information available about the universe (the entire system/process). We mainly know a lot about ourselves and Earth in this time-period. This is highly likely to skew predictions and give them bias.I’m not pretending to know whether we live in base reality or in a simulation. But I can say that the uncertainty in Elon’s probability is so great that it is no longer a meaningful/reasonable prediction.