When building an environment for a simulation-based experiment, how do you define realistic parameters?
What are you going to simulate?
If it is something natural, why don't you think of real natural parameters as of realistic?
the main objective behind my question was to reach a definition of the difference between copying nature and following your own logic
Is this practical question or philosophical?
If you talk about "your own logic", why do you need to call the results "realistic". If your simulation works, gives you some scientifically interesting results, then you say: "Yes, our results are different from what we observe in everyday reality, but..." If the simulation can be useful for anything or anyone, it will still be a good project.
If you talk about input parameters, not results, then still why "realistic" is the main problem? "Logically correct" is more important. But usually model works when its parameters are proportional to real parameters.
- Badges
- Science topic