Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8678269" data-attributes="member: 82106">but you ABSOLUTELY DO care about how fire propagates through a structure, and airflow and etc. etc. etc. and you MODEL these things, often using discrete models that incorporate simulation of physical process! These are CLASSIC realistic modeling methods, trust me. Yes, you may also use, often, statistical mechanical methods when you have large numbers of identical discrete elements. OTOH you may NOT. In galaxy formation simulations with 10's of billions of particles EACH ONE is individually modeled, every gravitational interaction is calculated out. There's no 'one way' that simulations work.Heh, you need not tell me. I've worked with people trying to do it. I mean, you actually CAN do a lot of stuff, particularly with modern ML techniques. I mean, I could easily create a commodity model that will tell you the price of some commodity with 80%+ accuracy, but it could be wildly far off the other 20%, lol. Silly people thought they could get rich running that model. Tried to tell them better, but fools and money...I don't believe anyone ever hunted a bear this way. They built traps, deadfalls, pits, drove them with dogs, treed them, shot them with arrows, and maybe finally some crazy young stud closed in after the bear was on its last legs and plunged in the spear that finished it off. That is pretty clear from the terminology and stories of this kind of hunting.I entirely agree with you on the 'fun' part, and that's kind of my point. It doesn't happen so much anymore, but a lot of people burned a lot of brain cells imagining they were really simulating stuff in some profound way and believing that making it a 'better sim' was something worthwhile (maybe sometimes).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8678269, member: 82106"] but you ABSOLUTELY DO care about how fire propagates through a structure, and airflow and etc. etc. etc. and you MODEL these things, often using discrete models that incorporate simulation of physical process! These are CLASSIC realistic modeling methods, trust me. Yes, you may also use, often, statistical mechanical methods when you have large numbers of identical discrete elements. OTOH you may NOT. In galaxy formation simulations with 10's of billions of particles EACH ONE is individually modeled, every gravitational interaction is calculated out. There's no 'one way' that simulations work. Heh, you need not tell me. I've worked with people trying to do it. I mean, you actually CAN do a lot of stuff, particularly with modern ML techniques. I mean, I could easily create a commodity model that will tell you the price of some commodity with 80%+ accuracy, but it could be wildly far off the other 20%, lol. Silly people thought they could get rich running that model. Tried to tell them better, but fools and money... I don't believe anyone ever hunted a bear this way. They built traps, deadfalls, pits, drove them with dogs, treed them, shot them with arrows, and maybe finally some crazy young stud closed in after the bear was on its last legs and plunged in the spear that finished it off. That is pretty clear from the terminology and stories of this kind of hunting. I entirely agree with you on the 'fun' part, and that's kind of my point. It doesn't happen so much anymore, but a lot of people burned a lot of brain cells imagining they were really simulating stuff in some profound way and believing that making it a 'better sim' was something worthwhile (maybe sometimes). [/QUOTE]

Verification