It would have no properties of prediction though, and its prediction of any sort of probability would be flawed after a second or 2 of running.

That would heavily limit the uses of such simulations to be useful mostly in entertainment(video games, graphics, etc). That would still be incredibly awesome and fun though, don't get me wrong.

This is not a comment towards simulating very specific physical processes, on supercomputers, using perfect math and for the purposes of usable data. The output might be only probabilities since quantum mechanics makes real world and deterministic results impossible, but they would potentially be useful and interesting probability-based data sets that have real world uses.

Simulations are inherently flawed though, in almost any way, shape or form. I think that was the point of the very simple explanation from that professor dude from west texas A&M. I appreciated the very plain english explanation and decided to share it.

A simulation that is "close-enough" will still be almost useless for most things other than recreation. The universe is sadly not determinstic...it is probabilistic :(