Predicting the future

[maarsen]

Quantum computing seems to be the next big thing. Compared to classical computing with binary switches, quantum computing can have its switches in a superposition of all states between, allowing for faster computation.

The many worlds idea of quantum theory is also intriguing. Would a quantum computer in theory be accessing these many worlds in its computational cycle? Would this be a good way of accurately predicting the future?

There is some evidence that the human brain acts on a quantum level to do what it can do. Does this mean that we can possibly be good at predicting the future? 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

The many worlds idea of quantum theory is also intriguing. Would a quantum computer in theory be accessing these many worlds in its computational cycle? Would this be a good way of accurately predicting the future?

No, it would not be accessing the many worlds. First, keep in mind that the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is not the only one nor even the one that is most widely accepted. Second, even if it does turn out to be the case, once the worlds branch off, there is no further communication between them. The computer would be accessing information from before the branching, but each instance of it only exists in a single world and has no access to any of the others (though of course there are many instances). For your second question, see below.

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

There is some evidence that the human brain acts on a quantum level to do what it can do. Does this mean that we can possibly be good at predicting the future?

We are good at predicting the future in some contexts, but this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. For example, for any location on the planet, we can predict the precise time and position on the horizon where the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Several other things can be predicted with similar accuracy and many more can be predicted, but not quite with that degree of certainty. A better computer would be able to make better predictions, but this would not be the result of quantum mechanics. Anything a quantum computer can do can also be done by a classical computer, it's just that there exists tasks at which quantum computers are much, much faster and/or require less memory.

[maarsen]

There are problems that would require a classical computer to be as large as the universe and that would need to run for the lifetime of the universe to solve. Some theorists believe a quantum computer could solve such a problem.

Predicting sunrises and sunsets is easy with a bit of math. Once  3 or more bodies are involved, approximate solutions are only possible. I have interactions with a few hundred people everyday so a classical computer would be useless in predicting with any reasonable approximation what kind of day I will have. 

As for there being no interaction between different worlds once a particle has been observed and its spin, let's say, is measured, the particle does not split into two separate particles, but continues to exist and interact with other particles. Conservation of energy should still be the rule.

All this considered, some people do have an an ability to be right more often than not, and is not explainable by chance. I have always been curious about this ability.

[Larry of the Lawn]

42

[GAROVORKIN]

10 hours ago, maarsen said:

Quantum computing seems to be the next big thing. Compared to classical computing with binary switches, quantum computing can have its switches in a superposition of all states between, allowing for faster computation.

The many worlds idea of quantum theory is also intriguing. Would a quantum computer in theory be accessing these many worlds in its computational cycle? Would this be a good way of accurately predicting the future?

There is some evidence that the human brain acts on a quantum level to do what it can do. Does this mean that we can possibly be good at predicting the future? 

It might be possible to project some future trends  bu,t projecting and prediction are two different things.  Even with the power of a theoretical quantum supercomputer, it seems unlikely that we could ever predict the future.  There  simply are way too many variables.

[Altherion]

5 hours ago, maarsen said:

There are problems that would require a classical computer to be as large as the universe and that would need to run for the lifetime of the universe to solve. Some theorists believe a quantum computer could solve such a problem.

Yes, there exist such problems. It's not just that some theorists believe, there are mathematical proofs of this (factoring large numbers is one example).

5 hours ago, maarsen said:

Predicting sunrises and sunsets is easy with a bit of math. Once  3 or more bodies are involved, approximate solutions are only possible. I have interactions with a few hundred people everyday so a classical computer would be useless in predicting with any reasonable approximation what kind of day I will have.

Not necessarily: most people are pretty predictable most of the time. For example, it's a pretty reasonable bet that I will go to work at a certain time on weekdays, interact with certain coworkers, come back home, have dinner and so on. There are deviations from this: I might be sick or take a vacation or go out for dinner with a friend or a date or take a work-related trip or something of the sort, but all of these are also relatively easy to account for... on average. The problem is that if you try to predict, say, half a year in advance, exactly which days of a particular month I will be sick or go out or take a trip, you're probably going to get it wrong -- but a quantum computer will not help you with this.

5 hours ago, maarsen said:

As for there being no interaction between different worlds once a particle has been observed and its spin, let's say, is measured, the particle does not split into two separate particles, but continues to exist and interact with other particles. Conservation of energy should still be the rule.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. The idea behind the many worlds interpretation is that at every point where quantum mechanics results in a seemingly random event, the universe splits into however many are needed to account for every possible outcome. To take your example with the spin measurement, there will be two universes (one where the spin was measured to be up and the other where it was down) and each of the will have exactly one particle and satisfy conservation of energy and all other laws of nature. The only difference between the universes is that this one particle has different spin and something else also has different spin (because angular momentum is a conserved quantity too). Once they split off, the universes no longer have anything to do with each other and cannot communicate.

5 hours ago, maarsen said:

All this considered, some people do have an an ability to be right more often than not, and is not explainable by chance. I have always been curious about this ability.

It's usually derived from experience, intelligence and the ability to keep one's mouth shut unless one is sure.

[maarsen]

Physics seems to have a huge insurmountable problem at its core. General relativity and quantum mechanics, when taken to extremes such as in black holes, contradict each other. Taken with Wolperts proof of the theory that the laws of physics are unknowable by any person or being able to interact with the universe, we seem to be stuck with no way of knowing the way forward. And yet we are reasonably good at doing so. 

Mathematics has been stuck in such contradictions also. The basic axioms of Euclid were not enough and had to be adapted. Then Godel's Incompleteness theorem  showed that there are no complete set of axioms that can be used for all math. Could the way to new physics be to follow the same path? Can new or even contradictory axioms point the way forward? I do not have the education or time to work on this problem but my intuition tells me this may be way forward. Hence back to my OP.

[GAROVORKIN]

Back the Future II  missed the mark  on a number of things .