It is, but one which makes the simulation substantially weaker.* All locks are not of same complexity.
While true, as I have previously argued, the
actual issue with picking a lock is not whether you are capable of doing so. As long as someone is generally well-practiced with picking locks, and they actually do have the tools necessary to pick a specific lock (meaning, they're not being asked to pick a disc detainer lock when they only have standard pin-tumbler/wafer/dimple locks), the only relevant concern is how
long it will take them to pick it. An experienced picker focused on speed over all other concerns can pick an unknown lock in minutes, perhaps seconds for very weak locks. An inexperienced picker, or one facing a type of lock they haven't seen before, might take quite a bit longer--but as long as those two criteria are met (have the tools, have the training), nearly all locks are 100% pickable by almost anyone, skill level just determines the amount of time it takes.
Given previous examples explicitly said that the person attempting the pick the lock did in fact have a real chance of picking it, even the alternative notion you're implying is substantially unlike the real world--whereas, in actual practice, what will affect a lockpicker trying to pick their way into a home....is going to be
whether someone notices their attempted burglary.
Which, I'll note, was
explicitly rejected as being un-simulation-y, even though it is, in fact,
more like reality than the idea that a certain lock is simply beyond person A's skills to pick, despite having all relevant tools and training.
And including that makes the simulation stronger.
Well. Assuming that the inclusion actually does move closer to the goal of simulation.
As noted above, it is entirely possible for something to
feel like a better simulation, despite actually
being objectively less like reality. Hence my reference to participant knowledge mattering. If you don't know anything at all about lockpicking, it seems perfectly reasonable that two people of fairly equivalent experience and access to the necessary tools could end up discovering that one lacks some key insight that the other possesses, and thus one can pick the lock while the other can't. Having been exposed to the amateur lockpicking world and dug deeper into this...I know that that's simply, and objectively, false. Two people of similar experience will be able to pick more or less all the same locks--exceptions will be very, very rare, and usually involve locks specifically designed to
break or
seize when picked, which contravenes the described examples anyway.
I harp on this specifically because it so clearly illustrates the fundamental disconnect between the way (process) "simulation" is
talked about, and the way it's actually
done in practice. Folks, here and elsewhere,
talk about it as though its target were to resemble objective, observable truths and verifiable logic as much as humanly possible. This is false. It would be lovely if it were true, but it isn't. What people actually want is the
feeling that it resembles objective, observable truths and verifiable logic. The unkind way of phrasing that is "truthiness"; my preferred way is "groundedness".
Something can be objectively disconnected from how reality works--genuinely in defiance of known, albeit obscure, data--but still
feel "realistic" or "verisimilitudinous" because it matches our intuitions and allows us to apply intuitive, naturalistic reasoning to such situations in a (in-the-fiction) consistent way. That's because it feels grounded, even if we later learn that it isn't actually how things work. Groundedness is influenced by IRL truth, but not determined by it. It's mostly a function of intuition and received wisdom.
