>>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.

If, then yes. I do have some doubts, as the model is based on the current knowledge - what we don't know is not in it. So if we know enough to extrapolate the rest, then it may produce usable results; if there's something important that's missing in the model, then the results would at least show there's something wrong with the model, which would at least be a proof that we're missing something, i.e. that current theory is incomplete, which would be worth the trouble by itself - much easier than building yet another bigger tunnel.

>>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.

I guess they can't be too far off the mark, as there are already experimental proofs and even practical applications (IIRC a FET transistor is based on QM). Of course, I'm not a physicist, physics was only my side subject, which I didn't actually ace (they tend to introduce approximations out of the blue and then still say it's math they're doing, so I couldn't quite follow their partial logic), and even that was 35 years ago.

>>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.

The interesting thing to see is whether they will be proven wrong, or a special case of a larger theory, or incomplete.