When you can't beat the argument, pull out the ad hominem fallacy and attack the man. Fallacy, of course, is faulty reasoning.
> So if you encode only one bit per cube of this fm cubic lattice, and you manage to encode this into single atoms of silicon, you need a volume of silicon 8,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than the system you model.
This explanation is indicative of linear thinking. Apparently Google Earth is not possible, as it would require a computer the size of the planet. Digitizing the Library of Congress apparently requires a memory stick the size of Congress. Seriously? You just can not comprehend how things could ever get better than your current understanding of how things are right now? Consider that if you lived in 1500BC, were an expert at the time in farming, and a plough was described to you, you would mock the person describing it, and insist that tilling soil was impossible.
And your second paragraph is amply demonstrating this. I pointed out the physical implications of encoding your femtometer cubes at atomic scale. Nothing more. Encoding the Library of Congress has nothing to do with that. You are proposing to simulate at subatomic scale so obviously encoding it into atoms will make the simulation larger than the object similated.
To engage with your argument directly: You have none. All you repeat is that the past has seen technological breakthroughs, therefore the specific fantasy you propose makes sense. Non sequitur. That some breakthroughs have happened doesn't mean that any random breakthrough will happen. And your ideas are pushing hard against the limits of physics.
Incorrect. Any statement concerning the arguer and ignoring their argument is ad hominem and fallacious argument.
> And your second paragraph is amply demonstrating this.
Incorrect and a tu quoque argument. I did not address you, personally, but only your argument, and if my use of "you" is confusing, it is the royal you, "you all," and I may as well have used "we."
> I pointed out the physical implications of encoding your femtometer cubes at atomic scale.
Using current understanding of how it would have to be done and in denial that it might ever possibly be done more efficiently in the future.
> Nothing more.
>>> I think Maursault has thoroughly demonstrated their lack of serious thought
other than this ad hominem.
> You are proposing to simulate at subatomic scale so obviously encoding it into atoms will make the simulation larger than the object similated.
and this straw man
> To engage with your argument directly: You have none.
but wait while you prove yourself wrong,
> All you repeat is that the past has seen technological breakthroughs,
Yes, my argument is that technology advances, and since it has always done so, my crazy idea is that it will keep on doing so. Though it is possible technology has stopped advancing, I think it is unlikely.
> therefore the specific fantasy you propose makes sense. Non sequitur.
The specific fantasy is your straw man, and I drew no conclusions, those are yours. Frankly, my first comment was a joke and not meant to be taken literally, and I only intended to argue against someone else's idea that increasing simulation resolution is not the future of weather modeling, and you're not the only one that got tripped up by my use of femtometer. Regardless, I still see it as possible territory, and anyone else not being able to conceive of how does not mean it is impossible, only that we can't conceive it, just like Bill Gates, not a stupid man, was unable to conceive of anyone needing more than 64KB of RAM, so you also are unable to conceive of how something that would require incredible, inconceivable advances in technology to achieve, and yet, within the next 5 years modern medicine will advance further than it has in all the years before, that's just how it is, and students of the history of technology know this the same way you know how many femtometers there are in silicon's lattice spacing. What you seem to be unable to do is understand there are things we don't understand, and in physics, a good example of this is dark matter, which for some reason we haven't figured out a way to detect it, and it is so similar to the luminiferous ether in this regard, that only students of the history of science suspect that it might be bullshit, while every scientific mind is convinced it exists, just like the luminiferous ether in 1886.
> That some breakthroughs have happened doesn't mean that any random breakthrough will happen. And your ideas are pushing hard against the limits of physics.
As far as you or anyone else knows, today. But we don't know the future, and we never have. This is not my proof that this will occur, only that we don't know.
