4 ms·
This is just straight wrong. There is no computer in the world that can predict the outcome of, say, a drug trial from these equations. If your “science” requi
by erikpukinskis 5y ago
This is just straight wrong. There is no computer in the world that can predict the outcome of, say, a drug trial from these equations.
If your “science” requires an impossible computer to work then it’s not science it’s faith.
- PrettyPebble 5y agoThe 9 lines do not say this. The lines do say that drugs are made of atoms and that the molecules follow quantum theory.
- Jyaif 5y agoYou are saying that we don't have a computer fast enough to simulate a drug trial, but you are not actually disagreeing with the parent.
- erikpukinskis 5y agoNo, I’m saying no computer will ever simulate it with only those equations. Higher level equations are needed which cannot be derived from the given ones, they can only be discovered through additional science.
- smoyer 5y agoAn impossible computer is different from a computer that humankind can not yet build. If our universe is a simulation, then some entity has already proven you wrong. If our universe isn't a simulation, our limited resources prevent us from running (detailed) universe-scale simulations. I'd say that we will eventually be able to simulate a drug interaction from these rules (it's the interaction between these rules that's the key) but I won't predict WHEN that might occur.
- erikpukinskis 5y agoThose are all reasonable beliefs, but still fall in the category of “faith”.