proof of life

speaking theoretically,

if it were possible for a computer program to imitate the mathematical equations of the physics that set the world in motion, and further to imitate the conditions of the environment of the earth as it was at the dawn of life, could something about life be revealed?

this program need not a visual representation of the conditions. it would seek only to provide enough data to be properly interpreted for its purpose:

the purpose of the program is only to prove that science need know more, for when science knows enough, this program shall prove whether or not “life” is even in reality anything other than consciousness and a beating heart.

because we have the technology to imitate the basic behaviors of single celled organisms.
because we know a great deal about the physical nature of the universe (though we still have a great deal to discover).
because we have theories to test what we have not yet discovered with our own eyes.

the test would be simple. constant data input and constant data output at the maximum rate of the processor (of course, it would be impossible for computer processes to perfectly imitate time, as the decimals representing each second can only go so far, as so many processes can only take place in a given second, so the road to a perfect experiment stretches on into infinity) would monitor, based on the physical equations and various data estimating the conditions of the earth in its primordial states, the progress of a single celled organism (also simulated) programmed to eat, reproduce, eat, and die eventually.

essentially, a program inside a program in a way. the first is the environment, represented by all the physics science can provide. the second is the most basic form of artificial life conceivable, representing a single celled organism.

organism success = accurately imitates life completely
organism failure = fails to imitate life completely

the simulation would prove one of two things based on our grasp of the physics of the universe.
1. if we totally grasp the physics, a success indicates that life itself can be depicted in equations the nature of the universe, and thus god.
2. if we totally grasp the physics, a failure indicates that life possesses something beyond the physical.
3. if we do not totally grasp the physics, success indicates that we in fact do grasp the physical universe (and see 1).
4. if we do not totally grasp the physics, failure indicates that we need further learn ourselves in the physics of the universe.

what are the implications?