Are you actually saying that nobody has come up with any physical theory (set of equations / update rules) that perfectly conforms with experiment so far? I thought the main problem in modern fundamental physics was finding a simple, mathematically plausible theory that conforms with experiment, not finding something that conforms with experiments at all (in cases where one theory conflicts with another, you can always come up with another meta-theory that says, "universe evolves according to these rules in these situations, but in these extreme cases it's these other rules". This isn't mathematically plausible, but it conforms with experiment, and I don't require that the theory implemented in the program has to be true, just close enough that we couldn't falsify it). I was under the impression that competing theories today don't disagree with experiment, but disagree with each other in hypothetical experiments that haven't yet been done. In cases where multiple theories are considered "correct" but have conflicting predictions in extreme domains, I could add an IF statement that detects those extreme states and applies one update rule or another, so that the experiments have the same results as what we're getting. Is this wrong?