Have we gone past hyper-speed and into plaid?

I was definitely intrigued in the article by Wolf the idea that computer simulation is at a level where it is trusted as reality. The example he gave that stuck with me was the cockpit, where pilots are basing their sight and lives on a mathematical representation of reality. We just assume that these representations are the real thing and place our absolute trust in mathematics and diagrams. Another example he gave was the courtroom scene, with the lawyer who presented material using a 3d analysis of the material, showing the jurors how the bullet path could have happened and chronologically placing events into a real-life scenario. It was then the judge's job to remind the jurors that this representation showed probabilities and did not represent the actual fact. The notion that he brings up is the idea that abstractions can become more real than reality itself. In Mishra's article we find the same concept mirrored with his example of the photograph and diagram of a mitochondrian. The diagram shows the three dimensional aspect with lines pointing to key functions of the mitochondrian, while the picture looks like a circle with diagonal blobs running through it. While this diagram may be a better representation for someone that is interested in biology and understanding different complex parts of the body, it can distract from the bigger picture of the story, and detract from new ideas being formed. For example, Mishra also gives us a diagram of the heart, one that we have all seen with the arteries and valves nicely colored, each part looking distinct and separate. He then says how med students will go into the body and be flabbergasted at how strange the heart looks, expecting reality to be similar to this basic diagram.

With this perspective I can understand how simulations and representations can be problematic. They are based off of past "truths," when in reality there are still no set truths that we can say are 100% for certain. We can say that statistically speaking, with the evidence given to us, from what we have seen up till now, that they are true, but we can't account for any future evidence that may disrupt these assumptions. The problem with this and diagrams/simulations representing reality are--what I can imagine being assumed to be true in the future when we are completely merged into computer simulation, maybe even living in a simulator ourselves. I'm not going to go all Matrix on you guys, but more like that Bruce Willis movie, Surrogates, in which we are living, working, playing in a simulated world with life-like avatars. It could definitely happen, why travel when a simulation is exactly the same? What better way to bridge the gap between time and space?

Anyways, if we live in this world where we are completely basing all our decisions off of models that were created, expected to be true, based on past conceptions of the world, then how can we discover new phenomena that is currently outside our current perception? (Ok, I'm going to go Matrix a little here).

I don't know there is something about the notion that Mishra presents and Wolf seemes to coincide with, that abstractions define reality better than reality itself that I just don't jive with. A present example of this is Photoshop, and color sharpening with pictures, to make them appear clearer and in the case of models, more beautiful.