It should be simple enough. You have the starting chemicals and the end chemicals. How come science hasn't described what comes in between yet in chemical reactions?
>>17056463https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reactionAsks chatgpt to explain the article to you
>>17056463>. How come science hasn't described what comes in between yet in chemical reactions?what makes you think that? The general principle is understood. Do you mean in the sense that it can't be quantitatively simulated? That has a simple answer that is "the number of chemical reactions involved grows with N^2 where N is the number of reactive chemical species" combined with "the number of reactive intermediates easily exceeds the hundreds to thousands even for simple combustion processes" combined with "the difficulty to numerically simulate a chemical reaction on a computer scales polynomially with the number of electrons and nuclei involved even with decent approximations, and radical species (relevant to combustion) and condensed phase (liquids and solids) require bulk properties (10^3 to 10^23 atoms)" So to model this quantitatively you are stuck with at least (10^2)^2 controlled measurements of isolated reactions under controlled conditions.
>>17056468radicals (relevant to combustion) converge poorly*
>>17056468is that all? the ligma collider launched 40 quadrillion experiments.
>>17056468doesn't that entail reality isn't a simulation because something as simple and mundane as grilling meat isn't computable?
>>17056475the issue is they are almost trivial experimental conditions that are hard to realize, these are surprisingly difficult experimental conditions that are also hard to control. It is very possible but would require similar budgets as a collider and a ton of automation. >>17056482It stands to reason the computational cost required could easily exceed 10^(10^23) of anything we could make with all material in the universe. To put things into perspective, a lot of chemistry simulations choke on combinatorics so you eventually get n! (so [math] \sim\sqrt{N}(N/e)^N [/math]) and similarly shit scaling problems. What saves theoretical chem as a discipline is actually that absolute energy scales only matter when electrons are ejected into empty space or absorbed, and a lot of the methods people use are incorrect by a large constant shift which cancels out neatly when you look at most observables.
>>17056482>doesn't that entail reality isn't a simulation because something as simple and mundane as grilling meat isn't computable?No, because it is theoretically computable (if you accept finite precision, that is) so simulationtards can always make up an imaginary meta-reality with as many orders of magnitude more matter and computing power as they need to support their religion.
>>17056482A simulation doesn’t need to compute the cooking it could just generate what it should look like though statistical approximation. Like how AI works.
>>17056482There's a difference between "computationally infeasible" and "not computable". As far as we know, all physical laws are computable.
>>17056760>As far as we know, all physical laws are computable.As far as anyone knows, time and space are continuous therefore you can't even compute a single helium atom, let alone a nice chunk of juicy, real, non-approximated meat. But you? Enjoy your fake, simulated slop.
>>17056764>continuous>not computable? What makes you think the universe uses numbers that are not computable?
>>17056766What makes you think your word salad makes sense?
>>17056767I accept your concession, I suppose
>I accept your concession, I supposeWhy do the kind of "people" who get utterly filtered by a post as simple as >>17056764 feel the urge to come to a "Science & Math" board?
idk anon, f(x) = x is continuous. but it's also computable. curious
>>17056463>>17056468et al Simulation theory is stupid, but the flaw in the story of the computation — that of the universe from known states to the next state by exhausting the possible combinations of state changes of all of its parts for the rules of those changes — being impossible is that the computation is of only one universe, not all universes, and so is not a combinatorics problem at all. Simply put, all computations are not necessary, because one moment to the next is dependent on the moment before to limit the possibilities of what could have made it. You would only compute from all atoms if you were computing all universes. Because not all parts are changing, and the part that is changing is already made, you only have to compute that change for that universe where those parts are already made. In other words you do not have to make all the possible combinations of each elemental reaction, because the reaction of the group of being a steak limits the individual reactions possible to be those that define the group reaction of cooking the steak.That is why steaks taste and smell the same, even though each steak is infinitely numerically different from each other. The universe of one atom combining with another is not the universe of the steak being cooked, and not the universe that you are in. The universe of the steak being cooked is only dependent upon the particular steak and how it was cooked. All else is never computed, because it doesn’t have to be, because it is already made by the universe of the steak about to be cooked.
>>17056788This is why chemistry is a macro science. Trying to reduce it to individual molecules only works when you equivocate the macro with the micro.Chemistry is a macro story that is told by the story of individual atoms combining No one can know or observe every single bond in a gram of a one element with another, but the macro behaves as if the micro were occurring. And THAT is the only “SIMULATION” going on here.
>>17056774>i'm a mentally ill retard stringing words randomlyOk.
>>17056806Let me explain it like you would understandLet's say you are in your bedroom, playing with your Legos before your nap. If you are building a house, and you are putting the chimney on top of the house, you don't have to rebuild the whole house for every new block you add, nor do you have to make everything you can make with your legos with every block you add... .... Oh, I see you are tired. Here's some milk...
>>17056809>mentally ill retard LITERALLY stringing together random words nowCan't make this shit up.
