>>11575029If a single unit of space is a computer.
Then the universe is not a large computer (CPU) but a set of countless mini computers (GPUs) communicating in a parallel way (spacetime).
This thinking is basically the opposite in how we program and do logic.
We do our logic in a careful step-by-step process (algorithm, gears) instead of thinking of it recursively (divide and conquer, cells).
The problem is we don't know how to emulate "complex logic" with these mini parallel computers.
Ex: It's almost unthinkable to build an operating system executed by GPUs instead of CPUs.
> Also you say that we already have the hardware, but the calculations he's proposing looks like way beyond our current computers, as in getting the answer is going to take too long to be able to get the answer "today" and that does come from the bigO.To simulate the universe, you need to have at least all the space of the universe.
In other words, it's impossible. The best we can do is to simulate it's very very beginning.
And as for the hardware, we already have the technology,
it's just that our current computer architectures, algorithms and programming languages are optimized for CPUs (linear) instead of GPUs (parallel).
> And coming back to your post in regards to not knowing the "right way to program", do you mean that we don't yet have for example a data structure that would represent universeIMO, the right data structure is the tree data structure. The problem is that mainstream tech depends too much on arrays.
Q: So what is the right way to program?
Nature's hint: by thinking in cells instead of gears; gears are efficient but cells can reproduce and evolve!
gears work in a linear fashion, but cells work in parallel and they can also form their own societies (illusion of consciousness?)
(just imagine 2 different source codes that can reproduce a better version by mutating them together)
