I don’t disagree with any of that, but it’s all phrased sort of as “you can’t prove it doesn’t.” What should make me single out the hypothesis that it does as worthy of further consideration?
I don’t know how else to say it: the things you point to as evidence supporting your claims just don’t actually offer substantial support for those claims. To support claims about the relative features of two systems you need relative evidence; absolute evidence about one system just isn’t very relevant.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but it’s all phrased sort of as “you can’t prove it doesn’t.” What should make me single out the hypothesis that it does as worthy of further consideration?
I don’t know how else to say it: the things you point to as evidence supporting your claims just don’t actually offer substantial support for those claims. To support claims about the relative features of two systems you need relative evidence; absolute evidence about one system just isn’t very relevant.