h a l f b a k e r y[marked-for-tagline]
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
As computers for forecasting weather become more powerful,
atmospheric scientists attempt to gather data that is more fine-
grained than before.
In other words, instead of having weather-measurement stations
every 10 kilometers apart, on the average, a more-powerful
computer might process data
from weather-measurement
stations
located only 5 km apart. An even-more-powerful computer
might
handle all the data from weather stations located 1 km apart.
And so on.
The basic idea is, as the weather in one locale changes, it tends
to
affect the weather in other locales. At a fine-enough scale,
this
is known as "the butterfly effect" (see link). In theory, if we
had
a computer as large as, say, the Sun, it could process all the
data
represented by the position and motion of every single gas-
molecule and dust-particle in the Earth's atmosphere, to
accurately forecast the weather weeks in the future.
WELL! If we could achieve that level of accuracy, then that
means we would KNOW what the large-scale consequences are,
of small-
scale events.
Clearly, someone performing a "rain dance" is shoving
significant
quantities of air molecules around, in ways they wouldn't
experience if the dance was not performed. Per the butterfly
effect, those changes in molecular motions can influence future
weather, perhaps enough to cause a rainstorm a few days
later.
So, in that future era, when a powerful-enough weather-
forecasting computer is available, give me some Ping Pong
paddles
to wave around, and I can control the weather! (cue evil laugh)
Butterfly effect
http://www.urbandic...rm=butterfly+effect
As mentioned in the main text. [Vernon, Sep 15 2015]
[link]
|
| |
I'm pretty sure that in order to get that level of accuracy
you are going to have to simulate the sun and moon as well
(both radiation and gravitational influence). And possibly
Jupiter as well (sure it's only 3.7e-6% of Earth's influence,
but it's definitely non zero). And of course things like
extrasolar gamma rays. |
|
| |
In other words, while it may be possible to make a
computer that can do this, if it is, we're likely already living
inside it. |
|
| |
// we're likely already living inside it // Actually I
contend that the computer required for hosting our
existence doesn't actually need to be that complicated or
powerful. Since many natural processes appear to be
quite random, it isn't actually necessary to simulate the
details of the movement of every atom, every molecule
or even every liter or air. A random number generator
can be used in many cases, as long as the details aren't
being observed*. The best evidence for this is quantum
physics. "Whoever" is running the simulation we are in
was actually starting to get worried some time during the
last hundred years since they had to keep inventing new
particles as scientists identified atoms, then subatomic
particles, etc. To avoid massively upgrading the
simulation, they finally abandoned the notion of tracking
everything observed and simply refused to allow us to see
both the velocity of position of a particle simultaneously.
Therefore while we may be able to observe subatomic
particles, the overall simulation doesn't actually have to
keep track of the position and velocity of subatomic
particles, just some average statistics. |
|
| |
Of course if this view was true, then it would actually be
impossible for us to create a computer to track all the
particles because then our computer is actually a virtual
computer and there's no way to have a virtual computer
more powerful than the computer on which it is being
hosted. |
|
| |
The key to predicting the future is to figure out what
pseudo-random number generation algorithm is being
used. |
|
| |
The real difficulty in all this will be in trying to
simulate the behaviour of butterflies. |
|
| |
You guys appear to be missing something. I specified "rain
dancers" and "Ping Pong paddles" --things that are far
larger than butterfly wings. Which means the needed
measurement-scale and computation power is not quite as
great as you are assuming! |
|
| |
But if a butterfly in South America can affect a tornado in
Kansas, then a fruit fly can alter the affects of your rain
dance. Therefore, we need to predict the behavior of
butterflies (and fruit flies) and all the people driving and
pilots flying... And whether or not you're going to sneeze
before during or after your rain dance. |
|
| |
//You guys appear to be missing something. I
specified "rain dancers" and "Ping Pong paddles" --
things that are far larger than butterfly wings. //
Vernon, you appear to be missing something. The
point of the butterfly effect is that arbitrarily small
things produce successively larger consequences over
time. Hence, you _will_ need to account for
butterflies, but you'll need to know what they were
doing 30 minutes before you picked up your paddles. |
|
| |
I'm seriously hoping that he gets elected. |
|
| |