Why it's impossible to simulate the universe? / Γιατί είναι αδύνατο να προσομοιωθεί το Σύμπαν;

## Why it's impossible to rigorously/analytically simulate the universe?

1. watch: How To Simulate The Universe With DFT - PBS Space Time - YouTube

Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't a great physicist. (He emotionally/shallow-mathematically likes the simulation hypothesis.) He's an orator. He doesn't use analytical mathematics on deep causality questions.

It's vastly many orders of magnitude easier to have an ontologically real universe, than Its simulation.

2. Any computer introduces noise, and noise correction algorithms are necessary.

3. Huge computers need huge CPUs (we might have to combine different CPU designs and different classes of CPS; that introduces conversion noise). Huge computers use a high proportion of their CPU[s] merely to manage the CPU[s] and the computer (also use it for noise correction). Practically it's impossible to create a very huge CPU. CPUs heat, fail and experience other entropic phenomena. Redundant designs are necessary, and that makes the computer even bigger. An infinitely vast computer made of a single CPU wouldn't be manageable. See: computer science. Practically each computer design reaches a limit. With parallel computing (not a single CPU but many computer units) we could theoretically create an extremely big computer (still not big as a town, because computers fail and it wouldn't be practical for a civilization to fix a vastly huge computer in reasonable time).

4. Computers created by persons/thinking creatures exist in self-caused universe-like substantialities like our universe. The universe itself is an "ontological Turing machine" being both its software and hardware and resulting from the same ontoaxiomatic algorithm. A thinker-made computer isn't self-caused, thus it has more restrictions than self-caused universe-like ontoaxiomatic algorithm. Universes aren't general calculators; their job is to exist; they (or things inside universes) can be used as general calculators, but that requires transcription from ontological allomathematics (ontological words are mathematically based, because only rigorous reason can cause substantiality; but ontological things simply have to exist, they don't have to be based on mathematics useful for general calculations. Allomathematics means different mathematics. Mathematics with different axioms or axiomatic rules like algorithms [not all axiomatics are static lists].). Physical (non-magical) calculational transcriptions introduce conversion noise; see: information theory. Also mathematics with different axiomatics isn't wholly transcribable in most cases. Thus many different transcriptions per mathematical formula might be
needed and that introduces more conversion noise. Simulating a universe isn't a small calculation you can check it by hand many times and avoid computational noise. (The brain in a vat is also a procedural mechanism = a computer. If it is presented as a non-computer it doesn't mean that unprocedurality/magic is possible. It simply means that the controller of the brain in a vat simulation doesn't have good control of the proceduralities of the simulation. That makes the brain in a vat hypothesis very weak if not impossible.)

## Douglas R. Hartree

see: Douglas R. Hartree

Exact simulations of universes are physically impossible/unmaintainable, simplified simulations do not present all specific microstates but are used for general predictions.

## unrelated but important

unrelated but important: Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye confuse/erroneously deem identical/tautological incomplete-theory physicalism (physicalism but without having the complete ontoaxiomatic theory; by the way it isn't ontologically complete [not merely interpretationally/epistemologically] because that would violate axiomatics and it would terminate causal ontology = substantiality foundations) and agnosticism = openness to the possibility that personhood is ontoaxiomatically fundamental and magic = unprocedurality being an ontological possibility. They are not rigorous enough thinkers, so they didn't expose their fallacy the way I did (otherwise they would change their minds).