I agree with that argument. That is to say, I find it intuitively appealing. But I also find the converse argument (things shouldn’t be said to exist just because someone wrote down a mathematical equation that might give rise to them) equally intuitively appealing.
(This line of reasoning has occurred here before, by the way. See also that post’s predecessors.)
All things considered my current position is, I don’t understand what’s going on well enough to come to any certain conclusion. I make the distinction of actually conducting the simulation purely because it seems the slightly more appealing of the two.
I agree with that argument. That is to say, I find it intuitively appealing. But I also find the converse argument (things shouldn’t be said to exist just because someone wrote down a mathematical equation that might give rise to them) equally intuitively appealing.
(This line of reasoning has occurred here before, by the way. See also that post’s predecessors.)
All things considered my current position is, I don’t understand what’s going on well enough to come to any certain conclusion. I make the distinction of actually conducting the simulation purely because it seems the slightly more appealing of the two.