Quote:
Originally Posted by gary
Hi Alex,
Say you could keep track of the motions of every particle.
As Julian just alluded to, Heisenberg then gets in the way.
But even if you were to put that aside for one moment and let's say one
could know the position and velocity of every particle in the Universe.
The other day I posted a link to a story in Nature about quantum thermodynamics.
See :-
https://www.nature.com/news/the-new-...-rules-1.22937
That article made mention of the solution to the Maxwell's Daemon paradox.
In a similar vain, to keep track of the positions and velocities of all particles
in the Universe you would need to build a memory store, its size
necessitating it probably be of a similar number of particles to what you
were tracking leading, to a paradox. Such a computer would even need
to track itself.
You might need another alternate Universe in which to store and run the computer.
But even if you were satisfied just to know all the governing laws of the
Universe without keeping track of particles in models, Gödel, Turing
and friends might get in the way first. |
Thank you for engaging the problem.
As you observe it has been written into science the uncertainty humans currently have in observing particles..the uncertainty comes not from the mechanism that governs the path of a particle but upon our ability to observe all its "being" simultaneously.
So from your input I can conclude one thing that we do not know and that is how to remove the necessity to operate via probability which our limited power of observation enables and be able to say all things about a particle.
And now the problem you point to arises ... Which is one more thing we don't know...how to contain a model of the universe, and the explaination would seem to then require more room than offered by the current universe...so we don't know how to house such a model...
Alex