>>>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


Nature provides us with four fundamental interactions: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

This is what the evidence says.

We need two theories/models to explain them. General Relativity for gravitation, Quantum Mechanics for the rest.

Those two theories, unfortunately, aren't entirely compatible, so the implication is one is wrong (or both are wrong).

String theory (along with others, such as loop quantum gravity) are attempts to reconcile them into one theory.


What the article I cited propose is that with future computing power we will be able to simulate a human being.

What I propose is that we simulate a human being making a measurement (for example reading time from an analog clock, which means we would also need to simulate the clock and the light reflecting off it into the human's eyes).

From there, we figure out the measurement made by the simulated human being, whether reading his brain waves, or having him record it in some manner we can decipher.

This is just a thought experiment for now, but when the computing power exists to perform the computer experiment for real, I predict the following:

the measurements made by the internal observer will agree with the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics as well as relativistic effects *even* when the underlying model does not.


If so, such a model would single handedly be validated by all observations and evidence, an accomplishment that neither General Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics can claim.



>(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.


The Big Bang is falsified on a regular basis. This week we found a group of quasars 4 billion light years across, 1/20th the alleged size of the universe, and not possible according to current theory.

QM and GR are known to be incomplete.