First, imagine some sort of 3-d movie.
Then, an interactive 3-d movie.
Then consider a large-scale 3-d movie; i.e. modelling what happens to each of those atoms in the universe over time.
Or, perhaps, modelling the little tiny components (and sub-components ad nauseum) of even one of those atoms. The possibilities are endless.... and perhaps, storing the 'feel' & phyiscs reacions of physical textures, the bonds between each of those atoms, etc.
Or....on another order of magnitude altogether, the binaries for Windows U[niverse]E.
:)
2^64 bytes is enough for any human
Posted Apr 27, 2004 21:01 UTC (Tue) by slamb (guest, #1070) [Link]
The point is not whether or not it would be useful to have an accurate model of the universe, but that it is impossible. Clearly you can't do better than (or even as well as) harnessing the largest set of good quantum numbers of every particle in the universe. (Your computer has to be in the universe!) So by examining the number of particles in the universe, you can come up with a number that is larger than the maximum possible storage space of a computer. Take the base-2 log and you've got an inexhaustible address space.I've seen discussions of this number before, but I don't remember the result. But I seem to recall it being less than 2^128; thus, a 128-bit address space is good enough for anyone. Really.
There are other arguments based on thermodynamics limiting the complexity of a computer. Google for discussions of thermodynamics and reversible vs. irreversible computers and you'll see what I mean.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds