4 ms·

Is it known that a cell can be "accurately" simulated? Quantum systems are very difficult to simulate (exponentially complex for a classical computer, I believe

Is it known that a cell can be "accurately" simulated? Quantum systems are very difficult to simulate (exponentially complex for a classical computer, I believe). What does accurately mean? There are a near-infinite number of possible quantum states a cell can be in. We don't even have the technology to measure the quantum state of a cell, let alone predict its time evolution. If a cell's emergent behavior is dependent on quantum or chaotic or otherwise subtle phenomenon, such a simulation may not accurately simulate a cell. The only hope we have of simulating a cell is by throwing away low-level information and then experimentally comparing our simulation to the real deal. At this stage, I don't think this is possible, so I consider the possibility of accurate cell simulation to be an open question. Do we have any way of knowing at this point? I'd be happy to be educated if I'm missing anything.

BoiledCabbage 10y ago
Nothing is know to be possible until it is actually done. So I agree with you that we don't know the answer, but I don't think that's a true limiting concern. Instead, we can estimate based on historical past, and project into the future. I don't know that the car I get in tomorrow will drive, but I can project that it will based on history. Similarly we don't know that we can simulate a cell, however, we can look at the rate of improvement in technology, see now physical limitations and project that in the future we likely will. In contrast if the question had been can we travel faster than light, while still unknowable, we could see the known limits in physics and project that we won't. The other important question which you raise is "what does accurately mean?". The two values of accurate that I see are what I'll call the "Turing Model" of accurate and the "Psychic Model" of accurate. The Turing model of accurate is that I were to observe the behaviors of this simulation of you, I wouldn't be able to tell it was a simulation of your or the real you. The "Psychic Model" of accurate would be if I were to feed the simulation the exact same inputs as you, it would product identical outputs until the day you both (simultaneously) die. I argue that the only meaning that matters for practical use is the Turing Model of accurate. If no one can tell it's not human, then it's equivalent to a human. So back to your original question of accuracy w.r.t. quantum phenomena. I do see reading of quantum data as a possible physical limitation. But my best (admittedly still laymen's) understanding of quantum behavior is that results can be accurately modeled probabilistically. We easily can produce the same result distribution. So my final argument rests on the question "Do we think that human intelligence depends only on the probability distribution of quantum events, or is there a hidden interplay in the specific "values" produced?" Based on what we've seen so far from QM, I lean towards a dependency on the distribution as sufficient - ie there isn't an underlying structure hidden in the values we need to try to replicate.

BoiledCabbage 10y ago

Nothing is know to be possible until it is actually done. So I agree with you that we don't know the answer, but I don't think that's a true limiting concern. Instead, we can estimate based on historical past, and project into the future. I don't know that the car I get in tomorrow will drive, but I can project that it will based on history. Similarly we don't know that we can simulate a cell, however, we can look at the rate of improvement in technology, see now physical limitations and project that in the future we likely will. In contrast if the question had been can we travel faster than light, while still unknowable, we could see the known limits in physics and project that we won't. The other important question which you raise is "what does accurately mean?". The two values of accurate that I see are what I'll call the "Turing Model" of accurate and the "Psychic Model" of accurate. The Turing model of accurate is that I were to observe the behaviors of this simulation of you, I wouldn't be able to tell it was a simulation of your or the real you. The "Psychic Model" of accurate would be if I were to feed the simulation the exact same inputs as you, it would product identical outputs until the day you both (simultaneously) die. I argue that the only meaning that matters for practical use is the Turing Model of accurate. If no one can tell it's not human, then it's equivalent to a human. So back to your original question of accuracy w.r.t. quantum phenomena. I do see reading of quantum data as a possible physical limitation. But my best (admittedly still laymen's) understanding of quantum behavior is that results can be accurately modeled probabilistically. We easily can produce the same result distribution. So my final argument rests on the question "Do we think that human intelligence depends only on the probability distribution of quantum events, or is there a hidden interplay in the specific "values" produced?" Based on what we've seen so far from QM, I lean towards a dependency on the distribution as sufficient - ie there isn't an underlying structure hidden in the values we need to try to replicate.