I appreciate the comment, but we seem to have different understanding about the context of the article. >It's just has to be close enough to be indistinguishab

I appreciate the comment, but we seem to have different understanding about the context of the article. >It's just has to be close enough to be indistinguishable from the real thing Then that 'close enough'simulation is the real thing for us. The summary of the content is, the computational complexity of that simulation is so large that we need a 'close-enough real thing' to simulate 'close enough simulation' of itself. In that case is it even a simulation? The second & third point mentioned seems to have assumed that such computational complexity is achieved; it doesn't change my argument of it.