rationalskepticism.org

ughaibu wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

ughaibu wrote:Simulations do not have the properties of the things that they simulate.

That is grossly overstated. SImulations have some of the properties of things they simulate, else they would not be simulations of those things.

What utter nonsense. Tell me, what non-trivial properties do simulations of weather systems and actual weather systems share? As we are incorrigibly subject to weather, this example suffices to refute simulation arguments.

Pretty much all the properties are in the simulation and the effects of weather on other systems are there as well. The only bits that aren't there are moving some actual physical molecules around. If the molecules are what matters your point is valid, but if it the relations between things, behaviours, aboutness and so are key then simulations can have all that.
But rant on, as you love to do.