When you ignore, seemingly everything I have said in order to merely repeat what I have refuted, yes … that is too “simple minded”.
I have explained away your position several times.
Yes. It is described with words denoting categories and quanta. But it is not those words, categories, nor quanta. The mind cannot perceive reality directly and thus words, symbols, and such are used in a cartoon type fashion to sufficiently relay as much information about reality as can be handled.
Reality is what is being described. It is not the description.
Don’t confuse the map with the terrain.
Agreed.
Exactly. Nietzsche had the crucial historically relevant problem in genealogy, when he used ‘herkunft’ and ‘ursprung’ at times differently, as contradictive.
What this says about the Positivist school, later in
Wittgenstein is foretelling. This foretelling was made manifest by Monk, who saw the lineage between Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. This presents an effort
by Nietzche to keep a back door open for another
alternative to genealogical possibility. Therefore the ex-post facto reduction has not particularly denied such a link to an original perception.
So there exists particular ambiguity, to the present day.
My point is that perception are ambiguous, simply because of this link between the totally overlapping
and encompassing meaning structure attached to
reality, to the modern version, where detachment challenges this. But what we are becoming detached from, is the lack of interest in original meaning.
No wonder, we can not revert to the more identifiable logic which prescribes to the birth of the tragedy of simulation
: the simulation of implicit use of mask, or
the well defined role making such drama real.
The simulated drama of modern times is no longer easily recognized for what IT IS, because IS has ceased to recognize IT. It has lost the original, and
has instead become simulated without really
recognizing the similarity. This is why Wittgenstein fails, along with the positivist school.
A difference without recognizing what IT is that it is different, and more importantly, how IT IS similarly different.
We’ve covered this in basic philosophy.
Yet what a nice way to bring it up! 
Better stop thinking and discussing about it then, quick before you risk realizing that you haven’t.
What you’ve claimed, without evidence or argument, is that as the complexity of a simulation increases, the amount of additional intervention necessary to intervene without the minds being simulated realizing that something is amiss grows exponentially, and at some point the growth is so exponential (?) that it’s infinite.
I pointed out that that’s not true. To say more on that point, 1) exponentially increasing interventions may go towards infinity, but for any finite amount of complexity, the required intervention is finite, 2) you didn’t, and I suspect can’t, point to a simulation that exhibits this behavior; I don’t doubt that there are systems and ways if intervening where exponentially increasing intervention is necessary, but not one in which infinite intervention is necessary (and you’ve pointed to neither), and 3) I’ve provided a mechanism by which an intervention could scale linearly with complexity, and which would only require as many interventions per cycle, and flipping only as many bits, as there are processes capable of detecting a flaw.
You haven’t responded to this. You have: misinterpreted and snarkily dismissed your own invocation of infinity when I referenced it in my rebuttal; quoted me a rhyming truism (which even as such is irrelevant because it’s about minds in the simulation lying to each other, and not about a mind outside the simulation manipulating the minds inside); and repeatedly insulted my position without backing up your insults with examples or argumentation. None of these amount to explaining anything, much less “explain[ing it] away”.
Are we gonna get into quantum theory next or possibly matrices ???
What in particular?
How rude is your intent! Geniuses are maniacal, duh! 
Guys, in re: intervention:
This is what Wittgenstein has been implying from Nietzsche’s allusion, albeit as per quanta of the propositional value of power.
Hahaha well that’s not NOT true… Can’t cut the rope of madness loose before you have a personal experience with madness.
Just the whole Ursprung & herkunft thing really…
Are you talking about “West World”???
Did it ever occur to anyone, that just like we have decompilers and game genies…
That you have this massive thriving variety of gamers that have different motivations, and as such, many would let the “sims” know?
I’m going to use this tack to debate the point rather than others right now …
Arrange a table for the neophytes. Pull up a chair and become laypeople to the cutting edge of physics.
Ec,
One created the others.
…depending on the intent, the capacity and the foresight of the simulator.(that one)
The one.
This one…
??
There’s only ONE being who can make simulations??!!
I thought this whole thread was about a more advanced SPECIES