From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu May 09 2002 - 08:04:27 MDT
On Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 05:04 am, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> No argument. But it begs the issue of when precisely simulation
> will trump obsservation? At some point observational astronomy
> will have to give ground to simulation based astronomy as the
> simulations demonstrate increasing accuracy.
Simulations are merely "theory". They are complex computer models that
emulate a good theory to show how things "might" work. Such simulations
(or theories) will never become so good that we don't have to test them
against reality.
> If I can run a complete (and accurate) simulation of whether
> Europa could have evolved life then isn't it rather pointless
> to send a probe there?
Even if it couldn't evolve life, how do we know that earth or martian
meteorites carrying bacteria didn't reach there? How do we know that
alien travelers haven't set up a way station there? Any why assume that
the search for life is the only reason to go there? We might want to
colonize it ourselves. We might want to look for resources or go on
vacation.
> It fundamentally comes down to a cost issue -- whether the
> simulation can bootstrap itself into a reasonable prediction
> of the outcome vs. running a real-life experiment based
> on real molecules in planetary quantities. Its a numbers
> game -- sooner or later we have to live with it.
Simulations are cheap ways to predict reality to save costs on the real
trip later. However, human curiosity and exploration will never be
replaced by computer simulations. Why simulate Europa at all? Why not
just run a role-playing scenario about an imaginary moon that is much
more interesting? Because we don't want theory or fiction all the
time. Eventually, someone is going to want to go to Europa. . .
because it's there.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:56 MST