posted on May, 8 2014 @ 04:23 AM
The problem with these simulations is that they will always be very high level simulations which simplify the underlying mechanics. To simulate every
single atom in a single living cell with real physics, requires a computer 1000x more powerful than the most powerful supercomputer on Earth (I can
find a source for that claim if anyone wants it). To simulate every particle in our observable
universe would require an unfathomable amount of
computing power. In fact, by the laws of thermodynamics, if we wanted to simulate our universe with 100% accuracy, it would require all the energy in
our entire universe to do so, which is impossible. Of course you might be able to simulate small parts of the universe, but that will still take a
tremendous amount of energy if you want to do it accurately.
What I'm trying to say is that it's not so hard to create a model which looks like the phenomena you're trying to simulate. Procedural video games can
generate entire landscapes randomly, and it can appear to be very much like real life, but of course in real life our landscapes are created over
millions of years and it involves many complex processes like wind and water erosion, tectonic plate shifts and earthquakes, etc. So even though the
end result can look the same as our procedurally generated landscapes, the actual process behind their generation was entirely different and worked
according to very different rules. These simulations are essentially the exact same thing, they are producing an end result which mimics nature, but
the process they used to generate the simulation doesn't reflect how nature really works.
edit on 8/5/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason