The example given by the NYU neuroscientist seems to be betray some misunderstanding/lack of vision: "Would you try to understand the universe by simulating ev

The example given by the NYU neuroscientist seems to be betray some misunderstanding/lack of vision: "Would you try to understand the universe by simulating every molecule? What would you have achieved? It’s going to be just as complicated as the real thing and you won’t understand it any better." At the very least you would have achieved the ability to rewind and play the universe forward again, which is something that we most certainly can't do with our real universe. You would also have achieved the ability to experiment with and measure the universe with potentially greater precision than we can in the physical world. Simulation is a tool to help you understand, not understanding itself. I don't think Markram ever said anything to the contrary.