### Contradicts his own definition of simulation We can also simply take his argument on it's own terms and see where it leads us. In other words, we aren't even criticizing it per se—we are just investigating it's consequences ([Explanations Imply Consequences](Explanations%20Imply%20Consequences.md)). Suppose you accept any mathematically possible decoding. Then you discard notions like isomorphism or structural integrity. Decoding becomes just arbitrary computation. So we are granting his explanation removing definition. But that still doesn't answer the question: how do we get the lookup table? It must be physically instantiated. If you have a lookup table decoding scheme, that lookup table must be generated somehow. How? You must have already run the simulation elsewhere to create it. In that case, you’re not discovering a simulation in the rock—you’re projecting results from elsewhere onto the rock. You’re not explaining anything about the rock itself. Thus: * You’ve added arbitrary elements (the lookup table) unnecessarily (violating Occam’s Razor). * You’ve turned an explanation into a mere description ([Description Is Not Explanation](Description%20Is%20Not%20Explanation.md)).  * You’ve lost the internal set of rules that define simulation. And here is the issue: by his own definition (simulation is based on the running of intrinsic rules), this does not count as a simulation! The simulation occurred elsewhere and produce a descriptive artifact—the lookup table. Thus by saying this is a simulation he is now contradicting his definition of simulation. This makes it a *bad explanation*! This has created problems and solved none (explanations should solve problems).