Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8675311" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think the whole problem here is simply that we're all getting off into the weeds. In scientific terms EVERY description of some process in nature is a 'model' (certainly all the quantitative ones are). So, for instance we can use Newton's law of gravity and calculate how far a rock falls from a standing start in 3 seconds, its velocity at the end of that period, etc. This is not particularly considered a 'simulation' in most cases, but there isn't some clear line here either! The model describes the relationships between 2 masses and the resulting functions in Delta T that apply to their velocities. We can now construct a scenario and run these functions, producing outputs and call that a simulation. OTOH when scientists discuss simulations, they generally mean fairly complex models that involve several or many parameters, possibly many discrete elements, etc. They generally also mean a process in which the outputs of the model are fed back into it as inputs and stepwise evolution of the system being simulated takes place. Now, its not necessary, more informally, to insist on the later. We can admit that a simple calculation of the velocity of a rock under gravity, given certain inputs of starting positions, velocities, and masses, is a simulation, and that's not inaccurate. However, the model we are using needs certain inputs. Lets imagine that we are modeling movement of objects under earth-like conditions. We can ignore air resistance, and our simulation will still work fine within certain bounds. So we can still call it a simulation, and it could even ignore mass and not bother calculating the movement of the Earth, but only of some much smaller mass, this is still a simulation in that if we actually plug in numbers and then carry out a real-world experiment, the outcomes will be pretty similar for a useful range of actual conditions (IE where the object's mass is not on the order of the Earth's, velocities are small, etc.). But even so, the simulation MUST incorporate velocity, it cannot work without that, and it cannot work without the mathematical model of Newtonian Gravity. Without those critical factors it isn't a simulation at all anymore, it is merely at best a rule of thumb. D&D's traditional damage from falling is of this character, a rule of thumb. It is in no way a simulation of anything at all, as it internally lacks any sort of model that embodies the causal relationships involved in objects falling in Earth gravity (or fantasy world gravity as you will).</blockquote>

Verification