You can’t say something is evidence against the simulation evidence without saying what crazy event would need to happen to provide evidence for the simulation hypothesis.
He has already provided that—since not seeing spider-man is evidence against simulation, it follows that seeing spider-man, or another person who could apparently violate the laws of physics, would be strong evidence for a simulation. Conservation of evidence is not being violated here.
He has already provided that—since not seeing spider-man is evidence against simulation, it follows that seeing spider-man, or another person who could apparently violate the laws of physics, would be strong evidence for a simulation. Conservation of evidence is not being violated here.
This makes sense. I’ve changed my mind, thanks!