We can’t accurately simulate the physical behavior even of pure water. (Yet; and from other reading about this I’ve done recently, it’s a long way off.) Therefore: Fantasies about simulating brains are fantastical.https://twitter.com/ashleythesmart/status/1032294373382340608 …
Nb I’m not making any in-principle metaphysical statement here. Rather, observing that rationality does often work in circumstances in which reduction is not currently practical or practiced; so reduction cannot be the explanation for why rationality works.
-
-
But you *have made* a metaphysical statement. I understand if that is not what you intended, but it is what you *did*.
-
Which statement do you take as metaphysical? (You may be right, but I’m not seeing one.)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
For the purposes of molecular dynamics simulation, you can treat the water solvent as a highly simplified potential field, and still get answers sufficiently accurate that we can understand the behavior of the target molecule. The point is to achieve *sufficient* accuracy.
-
Simulation implies simplification, discretization, and paring down the calculation to the minimum set required to provide a reasonably reliable model of the target system. You simulate the dynamics you need and no more.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If one is going to write critically about reason, one must be scrupulous about one's own utterances!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.