/sci/ 16083972 - Untitled Thread

1200x675

artistic-illustra....jpg

🧵 Untitled Thread

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:53:08 UTC No. 16083972

When do you think we'll be able to simulate organisms based on DNA information?

I mean, not just making statistical predictions, but simulating at the cellular level, meaningful enough for experimentation

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:57:27 UTC No. 16083981

>>16083972
Never, computer simulation is a fallacy. You only think it works because you have no experience with computer simulation. A computer simulation is a model of the programmers' imagination, not of reality.
Furthermore, computer simulation is a weak brainlet crutch for people who can't do analytical mathematics, so the people involved in computer simulation are inevitably terrible at math which further detracts from the value of computer simulations
>huuuurrr durrrrrrrr i'm a retard who can't figure out how to integrate muh function, i'll just have the computer do a sum for me instead

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:04:27 UTC No. 16083991

>>16083972
Probably not. Something like a full animal body would be intractibly hard from a computation perspective. I'm not a computer scientist, but I'm pretty sure predicting the protein output of DNA is NP-complete (correct me if I'm wrong)

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:11:26 UTC No. 16083998

>>16083972
our reality is a pretty powerful calculator, can do all math way faster than anything. if you grow the organism the computation is in realtime and few months/years it's fully done.
you could try and simulate it but if you want to see how your 20yo woman would look like it might take you more than 20years to do it with simulation, as compared to baremetal "code".

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:52:57 UTC No. 16084053

>>16083972
>simulating at the cellular level, meaningful enough for experimentation
Which would require simulating at the atomic level... which would mean you expend at least as many resources as having the real organism in the first place!
You see the issue?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 04:28:16 UTC No. 16084165

>>16083972
We already can and do. But the complexity class of the problem is such that large systems in real time are computationally intractable, and will remain so probably forever since there is no NP

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 04:31:29 UTC No. 16084169

>>16083998
>Want to rotate an atom in precursor term prior to combinatorial explosion and rewind from 378,453,231 seconds to 378,453,181 seconds into organisms life
>Whoops sorry gotta spin up a new one in the vacuum and set a timer for 11 years from now instead!

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 04:34:02 UTC No. 16084176

>>16084169
yea you're right. still fastest way of getting to that particular point.

View Same Yandex ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

505x572

nobrain.png

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:38:30 UTC No. 16084329

>>16083981

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:44:17 UTC No. 16084336

>>16083972
AI is helping a lot to understand processes involving DNA, but there is too much work ahead. Maybe in 50 years we will be able to simulate a cell to make useful experimentation using the model.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:58:24 UTC No. 16084351

>>16083972
we already can

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:48:42 UTC No. 16084424

>>16083991
>>16084165
>NP-complete
>there is no NP

Is it the same thing?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:23:09 UTC No. 16084742

>>16083981
bait used to be believable