> a simulation can provide information about what a particular scientific theory predicts. It cannot provide information about what the real world actually does.
If the simulation had come out in the negative, and it turned out this phase of H20 was totally inconsistent with all known physics, that would cause any reasonable person to assign a lower probability to the proposition that this phenomenon exists in the world. That's providing information about the world. Since the outcome would provide information in the negative, it also does in the positive.
I agree that there's an important distinction to be drawn between observational evidence vs. outcomes of simulations in terms of how they provide information, but they both provide information that was not accessible before.
> Since the outcome would provide information in the negative, it also does in the positive.
No, this doesn't follow. The two cases are not symmetric. Ruling out a phenomenon (if we assume for the sake of argument that a "negative" simulation result can actually do this--in reality things are quite a bit more complex, the simulation was not run as a binary yes/no test of a "phenomenon") rules it out. But showing that a phenomenon is possible doesn't tell you anything useful about whether it actually happens.
If the simulation had come out in the negative, and it turned out this phase of H20 was totally inconsistent with all known physics, that would cause any reasonable person to assign a lower probability to the proposition that this phenomenon exists in the world. That's providing information about the world. Since the outcome would provide information in the negative, it also does in the positive.
I agree that there's an important distinction to be drawn between observational evidence vs. outcomes of simulations in terms of how they provide information, but they both provide information that was not accessible before.