Re:New study simulates gravitational waves from failing warp...
by itishappy on Monday July 29, 2024 @05:24PM
(#41103950)
I understand, completely agree, and plan to continue digging myself into this pedantic hole anyway thank you very much.
Interesting that a difference of scale alone determined the nature of a thing! More interesting, perhaps, are the number of factors that aren't considered!
Would a simulation of a Peruvian ant on the Tibetan Plateau be real or imagined? What about a simulation of an ant after 20 years of climate change? How about an ant in space or experiencing the Big Bang?
On the other hand, is a simulation of a black hole real or imaginary? What about simulations of the history of the universe involving dark matter and dark energy?
I appreciate a sibling comment's (thanks marshray) suggestion that there exists a spectrum of theoreticalness. Theoreticity?
> the simulation in this paper is theoretical to a much larger degree than that of the teapot.
If I’m simulating a bug, it doesn’t make the bug imaginary. The simulation is immaterial. (I wouldn’t quite call it imaginary. Computers don’t imagine.) But I am simulating a real thing. If, on the other hand, I simulate a bug the size of Paris, I am simulating something imaginary.
All simulations are immaterial. But the things they are simulating can be real or imagined.