>>>Explain how "compare the model to the measurements of the model made within the model" includes anything that is not inside the model.
>>
>>I don't think I can.
>>
>>Can you explain how General Relativity includes anything not in General Relativity?
>>
>>I don't see the difference in those questions.
>
>A model is a model. The map is not the territory.
>
>But there is a difference. The relativity is a model of this universe, and any predictions it makes can, sooner or later, be tested in this universe.

Ok.


>The model you described is an universe unto itself, with its own rules as given by the software, and does not necessarily have any bearing with this universe.

If the predictions are validated by observation, then it would have as much of a bearing with nature as any other theory in agreement with the observations.

I'd go as far to say that if it can solve problems like the arrow of time, and quantum gravity, it has more bearing on nature than the current theories do.



> IOW, while the experiment may lead to very interesting results, I'd be wary of using those results outside of the model.
>
>You might want to read Greg Egan, whose novels are often interesting plays within virtual worlds, with many variations depending on hardware and mostly software considerations - clock rates etc.

I've read some. It is good.


>>>As for any chances that the model would have any semblance to the real world, I don't see how it would differ from any other model. The sheer number of particles (at all levels, even if assume we do nothing smaller than an electron) that would have to be included would require computational space with more mass than a planet. Or at least storage space, if the interactions between particles would be processed at some speed that would be several orders of magnitude slower than the real thing - still, I don't see a way to have a complete model of a single cell, molecule by molecule.
>>
>>How about 50 years from now?
>
>Even if they get to the level when the mass of electronics required to compute a state of a single electron is just a few molecules, and the speed of it is just six orders of magnitude behind the real clock, it would still be an approximation and would differ from real world to the degree where I wouldn't trust its results to be applied in it.

Do you trust General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics?

They are still approximations of nature.


>However, "applied" does not necessarily mean what I meant - it may be a clue into the real thing, which would then have to be tried and tested, and which may be one among thousands that would have to be tried before this one was found. So it may hold some promise, why not. As long as those who run the experiment don't fall into the trap of thinking that their model IS equal to real universe.

Sure, the same goes for the Big Bang Theory, General Relativity, and the current interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I don't believe any of those things are absolute truths. In fact, several decades from now, I'm sure each one of those theories will be outdated.


>And that I'd like to be alive to see.