I don’t know what though, because as soon as we zoom in the model to get more granularity, we lose it.

Well… I don’t know if the correlation _completely_ goes both ways though.

The large can be mapped onto the small, and a small functioning Universe can be created in microcosm. But were it to expand back to its original size, it would not behave the same. The granularity wouldn’t be there.

Our models are very *helpful* and useful and might even be enough to describe a human-comprehensible model/map/program/algorithm of the Universe…and it may help us clarify our thinking and make many accurate predictions.
But…
it will never be enough. The approximations will be but gross ones.
BUT – it’s likely that there will be SOME THINGS that can be modeled with complete accuracy. Things within a computer’s scope.

I don’t know what though, because as soon as we zoom in the model to get more granularity, we lose it.

So, I’d say: Big to small with extreme simplification, but not small to big except perhaps in a skeletal/very basic form.

Holographic projection seems our best bet for a static compression of the Universe – but even there, there is a loss of resolution and a limited perspective.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× 2 = six

Leave a Reply