[nl]

What does that mean?

We can tell when our simulations behaviour doesn't match the goal. But when it does, then what?

You seem to imply there is some (actual, literal) magic we are missing.

[bejuizb123]

Not entirely. I am simply stating that, our simulations are indistinguishable because, 'we' are simulating them. The simulations aren't going to get any better than what 'we' understand. That being said, it doesn't imply we have a perfect understanding of the Amoeba down to the last particle of it. (since we absolutely have no idea what it is).

[nl]

our simulations are indistinguishable because, 'we' are simulating them.

When we build bad simulations, then we can distinguishable them fine. Then we understand more, and do better, and then they become indistinguishable.

The simulations aren't going to get any better than what 'we' understand.

That's not entirely true. We simulate vision systems using RNNs, and we don't entirely understand how they learn.

[bejuizb123]

Yes, agree with your point on how they become indistinguishable. And, w.r.t RNNs, yes, probably we don't understand how they learn, but has that aided to process of how visual perception actually happens?