4 ms·
I can simulate a pink elephant but that doesn't prove its existence. These simulations probably miss important factors and thus have results between dubious an
by tempodox 2y ago
I can simulate a pink elephant but that doesn't prove its existence. These simulations probably miss important factors and thus have results between dubious and plain wrong. The wrongness of the results compared to reality might still yield interesting hints, if we're lucky.
- hn72774 2y agoEventually you hope that your yet-to-be-built pink elephant detector matches the result of your pink elephant simulator. Science doesn't happen in a vacuum. (Unless you need vacuum conditions .)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- doctoboggan 2y agoI don't really understand what you are saying - are you arguing that simulations are never useful? Or that these researchers do not understand the limits of their simulation?
- xpe 2y ago> The wrongness of the results compared to reality might still yield interesting hints, if we're lucky. Not just luck. Intelligence and luck. There is a skill involved in creating useful simulations that give clues on how to (a) reveal inconsistencies in current theories; (b) generate ideas for future theories; (c) design future experiments; (d) inspire scientists, present and future; and lots more.
- hn72774 2y agoIf you want to educate yourself on the "why," the branch of science is called computational astrophysics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_astrophysics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_astrophysics