Why We’re NOT Living in a Simulation

When The Matrix was released in 1999, it sparked a brand new way to express an old philosophical problem - a sceptical scenario. So let’s dive into the world of scepticism, the simulation hypothesis, and more, to see what they consist of, and how we might be able to refute them.
Support me on Patreon here (thank you you wonderful person): patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice...
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
00:00 The Simulation Hypothesis
01:27 A Sceptics Guide to Scepticism
05:15 "Stuff Obviously Exists"
10:49 The Contextualist
16:46 Brains in Vats and "Brains" in "Vats"

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

LINKS AND CORRECTIONS If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at [e-mail]. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7

[@stephenbrennan4508]

Simulation theory is silly 😜 simulation reality and illusion are synonymous for any sentient being within them

[@stephenbrennan4508]

Haha I like the saying have you ever been skeptical about your skepticism if no then your not truly a skeptic

[@Emire.das1]

Hey! Do you have an instagram account? l'd like to follow you also from there.

[@jeusmarcomascarina4102]

For me illusion is not entirely but the limitation of human or a living with it's skills. The more you are weak the more you see illusion. Because simulation are just meant for weaks.

[@augustsmith9553]

I really wanted to watch this But you’re British So annoying

[@traywor1615]

Earlier in my life I feared the sceptics arguments, but at some point I realized, being in a simulation, doesn't make my experience less real. I will still feel a very real feeling of the simulated hunger and then have a very real satisfaction of eating an illusion.

[@QuinnKallisti]

Ignorance is bliss, as cipher… would say.

[@Laszer271]

For me, the possibility of living in simulation was always hopeful as this proposes that there might be something out there, still for us to explore, even after death. Cheers!

Exactly. I'm stuck here for now either way, might as well make the best of it.

[@kuritheking]

I still feel the pang of missing the dead whether it’s imaginary or not

[@lionel4685]

@@Laszer271 how does simulation equal life after death ?

[@electricanomaly]

Best lesson my father taught me; question everything. All of our perceptions can be skewed by our biases. Let reality move you and accept it as it is, without adhering to false ideals.

[@smartsmartie7142]

How are you supposed to deny something that you thought was right your entire life? Everyone who grew up has unconsciously accepted and integrated the worldview their surrounding has, they live in that worldview. How do they step out when doubting itself is seen as the "work of evil"

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@smartsmartie7142 The best way is to accept, that no worldview is completely good or completely bad. It helps to try to understand the opposing views (and people) without judgment. You do not doubt yourself, you just open up to others.

[@waterfallfaerie]

I think this a nice ideal to have but this can actually be dangerous since "reality" and "false ideals" means something different for pretty much every individual and our "realities" are simply not correlated with truth. If anything, fiction and our narrow imagination of what the world is are crucial for being able to live the kind of life that a human does with our degree of self-awareness. If we actually fully considered every aspect of reality, we would all go insane and either choose not to live or to drown ourselves in drugs and alcohol-because the reality is that in order to live as a human you have to take the lives of uncountable numbers of other organisms and playfully ignore and create stories of will to hide the fact that you are being driven by your instincts and not by "reality". Our senses are not reality, they are interpretations of stimuli tuned to what is relevant to our survival; our worldviews are not reality, they are a small number of possible perspectives generated by our experiences and inner worlds and limited by hard-wired mental capacities; our knowledge is not reality, it is just attempts to grasp at it-yet, many humans consider their senses, worldview, and/or knowledge to be unquestionable and the furthest thing from a false ideal. Flat earthers, religious zealots, and criminal masterminds also let what they perceive, view, and know to be "reality" move them and we know what happens as a result of that. Considering this, I think it's a bit naive to suggest that reality should simply be followed or that it is something that is trustworthy enough to be accepted "as it is"-what we think is reality is often not even a fraction of what is occurring at scales that we don't have natural or even artificial access to. As most people see it, reality is their experience and understanding, which is often blanketed with layers of evolutionarily selected human-centric and survival-oriented thinking and feeling-this is unquestionably useful for human survival and thriving, but it's not anything to do with truth.

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@waterfallfaerie You can never know what "truth" is, especially in a possible simulation. As I see it, the purpose of the simulation would be precisely this - to create a "stage" for every single human to experience exactly that, which helps them evolve. So their subjective experience and understanding is the only thing which matters (and for which they are aaccountable). And there is NO way for any single man to know what "truth" is - even in some hypothetical realy real world, not to speak about simulation.

[@electricanomaly]

@@waterfallfaerie Take a moment and re-analyze this comment you made. It is rife with subjective opinion and bias. Reality is the shared environment that we as conscious individuals find ourselves operating within. An individual's perception (subjective view) of the reality we share is NOT reality. That is PERCEPTION False ideals are PERCEPTIONS interpreted as REALITY. I simply disagree for these reasons. If you decide to operate out of your subjective perceptions, then you will not be able to discern fact and fiction.

[@Yuki-od6cd]

"I trust table, more than I trust you" Best response 👏

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

It is a funny reply, but there is definitely something in it

[@mbmurphy777]

It’s actually a terrible response because that’s exactly what someone in the matrix would say. It’s funny and clever, but ultimately meaningless.

[@aaronz1326]

It's a bad argument. The absence of evidence for a table is self verifiable. No external parties, however convincing, required.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Well, I suppose logically speaking, both arguments essentially assume the falsity of what the other is attempting to show. Then the question is about the direction in which one can construct their epistemology. It is one reason why I prefer the pragmatic version where it says "we are stuck with one belief, and it implies the other belief". I think it is more plausible than the one Moore gives. It does not get us sidetracked into debates around epistemological structures, and emphasises the "no true disagreement without practical consequences" portion of Charles Peirce's philosophy, which is the part I find most interesting. In its construction by Moore it is important to remember that the two points comparing relative justification are "my hands exist" and "a sceptical scenario is possible" rather than "my hands exist" and "I am in a sceptical scenario". That is, he thinks the evidence for hands existing is stronger than the evidence that a sceptical scenario is possible, rather than granting the possibility (like via indistinguishability, as you do here) and then arguing against it. It is definitely worth a read in its original form, as it relies on subtle distinctions that it is easy to unintentionally caricature.

[@mbmurphy777]

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I will definitely take a look at the original argument. I like pragmatic arguments myself also. Here I was specifically referring to the table quip that some seem to find convincing. The argument is reminiscent of the guy that claimed to refute Berkley by kicking a rock. Rewatching your video I noticed that you use the fact that no one treats their loved ones as if they are computer programs as evidence against the fact that we are in a simulation. That argument also extends to materialism/determinism. In a deterministic universe, people essentially are nothing different than computer programs run on hardware of molecules in motion and software as the laws of physics. But no one treats their loved ones like that either.

[@nathancate582]

No detected 'like', 'um', or 'uh'; very informative content; no detected mistakes left in due to laziness. This, ladies and gents, is how you make youtube content. Props.

[@LostSoulSearching]

RIGHT???!!! His presentation is on point. Very professional, indeed.

[@thedarkknight8821]

Exactly. This is the kind of content which should blow up. I wish him and his channel the best 🤞🏻

[@user-fz4ty2tv9t]

One of the few content makers on KZbin That actually presents something worthy of our time Thank you from all my heart ❤️

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you for watching! I really appreciate it

[@mortalexo103]

Yes! This is a channel I legitimately get excited about.

[@hartssquire9386]

Sometimes I'm focusing so much on the train of thought he's on that I lose track of whatever else I'm doing, that's how engaging content should be, not "let me zone out and kinda listen" Absolutely fantastic work I've learned so much about philosophy and even my own political biases watching your channel, examining the mind is so fascinating

[@christianpetersen163]

"I trust the table more than I trust you." That response is so savage that the man now has the right to enter the other guy's residence and acquire any furniture he likes for himself.

[@aaronz1326]

It's a bad argument. The absence of evidence for a table is self verifiable. No external parties, however convincing, required.

[@paulsixtus4926]

No such thing as the table exist. There's only 'it ' from which we abstract and i-ma-gine.

[@ForageGardener]

You can't know your hand exists you can only know that you are perceiving having a hand. If you can just "know your hand exists" then you could just "know everything in your dreams is real" 😂

[@kisbiflos]

"living in a simulation" has no bearing on the existence of things. Just because I know and have proof of my hand existing, it can still be a simulation.

[@Stafus]

why does no one point out that we are not in a simulation simply because a simulation is for the benefit of the simulator ! the simulation has no self and doesn't need one.

[@8bitninja64]

My hands exist in my dreams as well and they can feel warmth and texture just like in my waking life. Also, if we are in a simulation we are more likely just A.I. agents as opposed to “a brain in a jar”.

[@Stafus]

@@8bitninja64 i'm 60 years old, I have never felt pain in a dream.

[@8bitninja64]

@@Stafus Same here. That’s probably because we wake up anytime there’s a situation that will cause pain but you can feel the warmth and the smoothness of skin in your dreams. At least I can.

[@Stafus]

@@8bitninja64 there's a difference between imagining a feeling and actually feeling it.

[@love-dove-noora5438]

If we live in a simulation my first thought would be: “What sick bastard is controlling my life”

[@stargazer137]

real talk bruh

[@meantweetsandcheepgas946]

Plot twist: you wrote out your destiny before you were born.

[@paromita_ghosh]

I'd thats your first thought you are already screwed You don't believe in free will , do you?

[@superkamiguru4963]

Some sort of demiurge

[@chickenlover657]

@@paromita_ghosh I don't "believe" in free will and I don't think we live in a simulation.

[@BerserkerErik]

Putnam's argument really blew me away for a second there, for a while I was pretty convinced the simulation hypothesis seemed pretty logical, but who even knows the logic of our minds can even interpret/understand or comprehend this external world. Good video and some interesting takes indeed.

[@Stafus]

why does no one point out that we are not in a simulation simply because a simulation is for the benefit of the simulator ! the simulation has no self and doesn't need one.

[@ycyean8235]

"I trust table, more than I trust you" my dad to me

[@lupo3694]

made me laugh. thanks.

[@saranshukla]

I have actually been scared of this philosophy so many times, It was GREAT to watch your video essay on it, Thank you, Beautiful video ♥️

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you for watching!

[@jamescurrie2246]

One mistake people make is that Decarte said, "I think , therefore I am". I recall reading the words "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am." Thinking is fundamentally the act of doubt, therefore "I" don't know anything by thinking because doubt is not knowing. So, who is this guy "I am?" He seems to believe he knows things yet only exists because he doubts existence, yet he obviously does. No doubt at all for a knower.

[@alb5760]

As an Albanian individual, regular watcher of your videos, I was caught off guard by your albanian reference. However I was genuinely pleased!!

[@undercoverblade6647]

No way! I thought i was the only Albanian watching his videos!Happy to see a fellow Albanian enjoys his content too!

[@alb5760]

@@undercoverblade6647 hello my albanian mate! I hope you are doing well! I know , we are everywhere lol 😂

[@arunsheokand2527]

I hope after my death I wake up with a bong in my hand, aliens besides me asking "Did it hit?" 😅😂

[@mortalexo103]

New unsolicited advice! Yes please!

[@Will-ke7cj]

Another banger video my guy. You deserve way more recognition

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! And to be fair, I've been blown away by the recognition I've been getting

[@troutfish8590]

As someone who loves to listen to a ton of philosophy content, you are one of the best channels out there.

[@for_fox_aches]

I discovered you only days ago and am blown away by your content.

[@steveweast475]

Uploads a Matrix video after I just finished watching Matpat's Matrix theory. This cannot be a coincidence, we are living in a Matrix.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Haha!

[@begumhasina1052]

If it is the wifi needs a check

[@isopropyltoxicity]

No we aren't the algorithm recommends similar videos

[@steveweast475]

@@isopropyltoxicity nah, I got recommended the Matrix Game Theory video before this one got uploaded

[@seditt5146]

@@steveweast475 Its because underlaying reality and that which we perceive it to be are two wildly different things. There likely is a reason for these sorts of simultaneities that everyone experiences more and more the more open they become to them even outside of the current idea that we remember things that appear meaningful and seek them out. This video fails to disprove from point 1 as we have no proof of the hand and there are many issues with Phantom limbs where people believe they have limbs that do not exist. If you base your philosophy like this CC does on a foundation of mud it becomes quite easy to push anything over that is piled on top of it. We know for a fact reality is just not how we view it. Donald Hoffmans work is trying to quantify this sort of thing using math's and what not but the overall understanding is intuitive as can be once we realize anything not beneficial to our survival was discarded by evolution and that we only even experience a tiny fraction of the Electromagnetic, Acoustic, and mechanical environment around us. I would love to believe we are not in something similar to a simulation but its becoming increasingly harder to ignore as the odds of you and me being here at this point in time are so close to zero it becomes more likely your hand is a figment of your imagination. MUCH more likely!

[@TheKingOfWaves]

Your videos keep getting better and better

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! That’s very kind!

[@angelmancrybaby]

love this video!! I'm so happy you talked about this topic

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@z-O_O-z]

Great video- thank you for your informative work. 😊

[@Ropewatch]

I love your recent videos. Very nice topics.

[@parisafarin6686]

love you and your content!!!!!

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@nightigal]

The simulation hypothesis becomes a lot less scary when you realize it's just theism for computer nerds.

[@VolodymyrPankov]

💯🔥

[@theblishknovk]

Well that would imply that they think only one theory is true.

[@OrdnanceLab]

Great and insightful video.

[@jesuswept7408]

If i lived in a simulation, I might be programed to believe my hands exist

[@user-bg4em1sz1i]

As soon as you said that you can:to hold two opposing beliefs in your head I got an Audible commercial for 1984😂.

[@christopherwilson5815]

I’ve just stumbled upon your channel, and I just wanted to share my story of recent events. I’ve been very depressed lately, with the state of the world, the philosophical and physical wars, and what feels like the overwhelming and insidious nihilism the world has slowly crept towards. For the first time in a long time, I relied on substances to help alleviate my constant dread and depression, namely marijuana. Medical, marijuana. One day recently after smoking marijuana from a certified dispensary I had a psychotic episode coupled with a serious panic attack. Where I was hallucinating seeing 1’s and 0’s everywhere, and as I tried to distract myself I kept noticing signs of being in a simulation everywhere around me. To the point I was sitting next to my wife, and falling apart as I was questioning whether or not my wife was even real. Whether the life I had with her, or the immense love I felt for her was real at all. Unsure if the substance was laced, but I dealt with serious hangover like effects of delusional thinking, paranoia, and what felt like for the first time in my life and immense nihilistic belief that none of this was real. And that I was experiencing a simulated hell, where I was to live the rest of my life unable to genuinely believe in the reality I am experiencing. I’ve slowly gotten better, but that anxiety and fear has persisted long after that event. After coming across your video, I can honestly tell you that your discussion of this topic has helped to ground me more than anything else I’ve found. Please, keep doing what you are doing. You may not realize it now, but like myself, I’m sure you’ve helped many others lives either through entertainment or other means. Thank you, your channel is a hidden gem and now you have another subscriber.

[@Webedunn]

Some weed can be extremely powerful. I haven’t smoked weed in 25 years other than a few puffs here or there but the last time I got extremely paranoid and said, “NEVER AGAIN.” It was a major depressant when I smoked daily. I’ve also done some hardcore hallucinogens and have had out of body reactions and I can guarantee you, our consciousness exist outside of our body. I can remember looking down at my body as my body actually moved and when I went into another trip I woke slightly to find my body in that position. I don’t claim to know what’s really going on but I know this world, this reality isn’t nothing. It’s just part of the trip but hang in there Bro! I too got very depressed with terrible anxiety and very worried about the future but then I had a revelation (from research, scientific and spiritual content that I truly bel was given to me in perfect order) that none of this matters. When this meat puppet gives out and you move on you look back at this place with distain. It’s meaningless and quite silly when you see the greed and selfishness of this place. I’m no longer afraid of anything that happens here bc it’s just a blip in time….

[@user-bb8sw1jo6o]

Stop smoking weed unless you want to see a hell that is far beyond your wildest imagination. You caught a glimpse... Trust me, there comes a point where no amount of philosophy can bring you back. Stop.

[@Epoch11]

You did an excellent job explaining these Concepts which can often seem difficult simply because of philosophical jargon

[@StalkedHuman]

He makes false statements throughout the whole video.

[@wideeyewanderer1785]

I needed to hear this, thanks a lot bro!

[@StalkedHuman]

2:35 he makes a gaping mindless false statement. You didn't notice.. reasons for that.

[@wideeyewanderer1785]

@@StalkedHuman first off I want to thank you for pointing that out. I would like to know what “ gaping mindless false statement” you are talking about?

[@StalkedHuman]

@@wideeyewanderer1785 the time stamp I should have pointed to* was 2:28. "All our beliefs are false".. is exactly an IRRATIONAL STATEMENT. It's exactly irrational. No one should conclude a simulation equals ALL IS FALSE. You guys do. You are no omniscient but are pathologically lying narcasists

[@StalkedHuman]

2:28

[@StalkedHuman]

@@wideeyewanderer1785 it made an irrational statement at 2:28.

[@LostSoulSearching]

The first line hooked me!!! ❤

[@thatonedude5357]

Just a thank you for the subtitles.

[@elliott614]

you could have one of those neurological conditions where you believe your own hand doesn't belong to yourself

[@_abdul]

I Think, Therefore I Am You Think, Therefore You Am They Think, Therefore They Am Am we all Am? Maybe we Am.

[@SupachargedGaming]

"Something thinks, [therefore] something is"

[@taylornovia8911]

I do not think therefore I do not am. -Cartoon snake

[@chickenlover657]

@@SupachargedGaming Thinking is no proof of existence. If we lived in a simulation (which I don't believe for a single second) our thoughts could just as well be exe files. So thinking proves nothing.

[@benrex7775]

@@SupachargedGaming You are wrong. This is correct: "Something thinks, [therefore] something am"

[@tylerwarwick7975]

This was one of the first videos to pop up on my feed after my phone mysteriously reset itself at 4:11 in the morning so I'm going to watch because it feels like I angered the sentinels lol.

[@isaiahdanz3308]

Deeply I say, as a student of philosophy, I’ve come to realize that two underlying aims are being strung so brilliantly in our concepts, ideals, ideas, beliefs. It is this, one is the life denying aim; of which narratives like the simulation hypothesis is, where it’s basically an idea to conceive existence and reality as something to go away from, to see it only as an illusion worth running away from. Another idea specifically that conveys the life denial aim, is the God concept, or the believe that for existence to be, there must have been a creator, one singular entity-thus through him, the life denying aim can express by humanity deeming creation and destruction of reality up to one entity, to make reality be evaluated by one entity, this contrived ingenuity is very subtle, you can not doubt for any second that the Abrahamic religions that exist today for the most part, intentionally misunderstood and perverse the real purpose of God as a human creation. The real meaning of God was that it was the ultimate tool and position of power to transvaluate all values, (transfigure, renew, destroy, or create). This was reversed to make god become the trans valuation of existence itself, in order to deny life and slander it as meaninglessness or unbearable. A ideal that cloaks this aim, is the state of consciousness where one attains a new perspective and psychologically cleans one’s mind (the aim of Buddhism), but, although life denyingly decadent, it is actually a tool to appreciate and jump back into existence with a greater understanding coupled with gratitude and empathy. This ideal promised nothing, but actually solves something, unlike Christianity for example. Indeed, most western religions are a heavily misunderstanding and reversed engineered of the original material. No more greater unfaithfulness can be found in modern western religions to their original sources… no wonder the western religions requires many to put only their faith in them, for it seeks to make everyone live in the imagination of the priest, the priest is the one who cannot tolerate life, so hence, he created a immortal world, away from reality, giving people what I’d call a superficial meaning to their life’s, I often hear it’s false promise in Christian’s especially, where they naively say “well find out what heaven is like after I die” not knowing they’ve been promised something that they can never experience, since it’s of the priests imagination. I’d be a genius and evil move if some priest, was to implant the consciousnesses of everyone into a simulation that he’d see as heaven or hell. But such a thing to even suggest… Speaking of simulation, again this hypothesis can serve and is connected to the imaginative concepts of heaven and hell, not only are they a actual state of calm serenity or agitated helplessness, but they envelop the minds of those who do not know who they are-which disturbingly is most humans in history. Thus the simulation hypothesis and the empty promises of a afterlife are most felt again today, since we can actually in reality, set up a simulation computer where we’d put those who are about to die, in the simulation that’d resembled heaven or hell. And finally, the life denying aim has one more constituent at play! It is also indeed connected with the simulation hypothesis and empty promises of heaven or hell by the priest (who used god to deny life by becoming god) This concept or regression out of intolerance of pain and overall inability to digest pain for energy: is the concept of immortality! Ah, with all these three recipes, no wonder modern man has yet again went to wanting to have faith in god, for the simulation hypothesis was the missing price to satisfy their decadence, their intolerance to pain, and hence, their need to go back into the womb. Ah, what cringe I feel talking about the life denying aim! Now! Let me get to the good part! The life affirming aim, the aim I strive to be exact and honest with you my friends! It also consists of three recipes, but of course, are constituents that are completely different from the ones we already discussed. 1.) one life that’s whole, no need for eternity! (power and a abundance of it, it is often deemed evil by those who deny life, but it also is!) 2.) the tolerance and ability to digest pain and pleasure well, to convert it into vitality (creativity and destruction of one’s own values, not the priests values, but by knowing what the priest hates, there you’ll find the materials to) 3.) a clear understanding and grounding of reality, so clear that no philosopher other than Nietzsche has truly understood. A meaning of fixing things in reality that actually need to be fixed (love) and the overcoming of resistance of which misfortune often appears as(happiness)

[@moshiachnow78]

I don't understand how the last argument makes sense given the fact that we have words for things that exist purely in fantasy

[@koningflorian2346]

Really easy to follow the speed at which you explain

[@mistyhaney5565]

Excellent video

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@brendanrobinson6860]

I think to do justice to this topic one should start with a short introduction into what is meany by a “simulation”. The mechanics of the simulation is not that relevant but it begs the question “who is the simulator” and are other versions run in parallel universes. Is it possible in fact to wake up out of the simulation or can you simply become aware of the fact that it is a simulation. And then, to what end?

[@Stafus]

why does no one point out that we are not in a simulation simply because a simulation is for the benefit of the simulator ! the simulation has no self and doesn't need one.

[@brendanrobinson6860]

@@Stafus yes, this is where it gets really interesting. the realisation that the simulated and simulator are in fact one undivided process.

[@the.littlest.toaster]

What if the simulation we live in is natural it occurs without a creator but just base on a loose set of rules. Like our universe doesn't benefit us living in it we are just a byproduct that naturally happens in this natural simulation

[@chickenlover657]

@@the.littlest.toaster That's sort of how it is actually. To realize this you just need remember that perception is species specific. You see and experience the world as you do because you are human; a horse sees it VERY differently. Because it's a horse. In order to see and experience the world as a horse does, you'd have to become a horse. Is either of these "realities" better or more real than the other? No. Altho we could follow Leibniz' lead and proclaim ours is "the best of all worlds". Which in a way is true. But the horse can say the same. Because each of our modes of perception is the perfect fit for us, as a species, to navigate in this world. And literally every species in the universe can, for itself, conclude likewise. So, the beneficiary of a particular mode of perception is the very species to which this modality is specific. It is a perfectly matched tool providing proper functioning and survival in the species’ determined environment. Don’t let the anthropomorphist novelists fool you, if you were a horse, human type awareness would be of no use to you. And god forbid if there were horses in human bodies. Summa summarum, you have the exact quality of perception that most becomes you as a species. No other would be of any practical value in support of your existence. And this can only be so in an ordered universe. Whether you like to imagine this order came about by design or is a byproduct of the laws of physics is really irrelevant.

[@theblishknovk]

Even the simulator making the simulation could be in a simulation. The layers could be "infinite".

[@alena-qu9vj]

Funny that the author and most of comments are only looking into the "make-up" of the posible simulation, not giving a thought to its creator and/or purpose. Where it could lead to a realization more likely than those tautological mental games with vaguely defined terms. Suppose, we are in a simulation. Who would want/need it, and WHY? What would be our relationship to the creator of it, what would be our role and use? Are there any traces and signposts in the history of human knowledge which could help us to navigate? THIS is the way to understand, logic is just dead end of wisdom.

[@chickenlover657]

I literally said this a minute ago to someone up in comments.

[@Jas-1000]

The word “simulation” is just a way to try to understand what we are experiencing. It quite obviously we are living in some sort of simulation /creation, similar to a computer game. As time passes there are always series of events always happening things are always changing, sometimes fast sometimes slow. New data is being updated daily. The world is changing daily. and we, as the individual knows for a fact that this is not forever. We will move on. everyone that comes here eventually leaves. Where do we go? No one really actually knows 100% but there are lots of theories and anecdotal evidence. What does this mean. Well our bodies might just be an avatar, we are living in the story of the body that we inhabited. Experiencing the story the life that already pre written to this avatar we inhabited. Once you understand that, the likelihood that we are living in in a simulation is very, very likely.

[@chickenlover657]

It only becomes mildly likely if you can provide a solid retort to what would be the purpose of this? Who profits and is it economical? If you cannot produce valid answers to these questions then obviously you have no argument, you're just letting your imagination run wild.

[@StalkedHuman]

The idea is simple. Consider a spaceship.. 😮.. with life support 🚀 system 💤😴 .. and there is no way to sustain the crew without rearranging the deck chairs 💺.. active consciousness .. required.. to keep the ship protocol of life support functioning..

[@StalkedHuman]

Now the concept that microscopic complexity exists.. not plank units but relationships of elect magnetic 🧲🧭 sophistication.. has a lot to do with energy efficiency economics and wellness of people.. see.

[@StalkedHuman]

Consideration for evolution 🧬 and piety* to the participants and principles.. is valued by the dying . ancient beings

[@Jas-1000]

@@chickenlover657 who profits? Who benefits? What kind of question is that? What you’re asking is only a valid question within this dimension, this construct. Outside this dimension nothing you’re asking matters. Those are living human problems, within the parameters of the construct. Once your soul, leave this earth, which it will one day, that’s an indisputable fact, there will be all brand new sets of rules and ideas in that dimension that you’ve have arrived in. Right now everything is totally outside the grasp of our knowledge base and language to understand because we are not those beings existing on that other side. Until we past, we may or may not find out the answers to the meaning of existence, or life, but I have a fair idea that it’s to experience, different varieties and variations of life. This is the whole point of living is to experience life in all different ways. Because it’s a learning process. An exercise to get better, to have more wisdom to have more understanding, so every time we come back, we still have the essence still in us, even though our memories are wiped, but residual memories can somehow breakthrough that’s why you have déjà vu and also we might be encoded with new parameters that gives us more insight and knowledge every time we come back. Now back to the subject of simulation theory. Top scientist/physicist, already came to the conclusion that we are more likely living in a simulation then actual base reality. Look up Nick Bostrom. And look up the double slit experiment. Until you have graduated to the point where you are actually conscious and aware of the fact that sometimes some of your actions are not even within your control then you start to realize there’s something else going on. Depending on how old you are, you might not have enough life experience to notice the subtleties and nuances of life. Certain life events happen periodically throughout your life that set you off on a new course, even though you didn’t want it. Now think about that. This is just one example of many examples, but I don’t have time for more. I’ve already written a biography at this point.

[@TimTheMain]

"You are right, but it's not relevant" is the correct answer in most situation but it still needs to be said. It depends also on the context of the conversation. If the context of the conversation is our existence than it could be relevant. If anything it shows that knowing with absolute certainty is not possible and that is a very useful tool also in everyday life.

[@mr.mountvillain362]

Robert E. Howard said it a hundred years ago. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.

[@Heaz847]

Great video

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@quinn2014]

THE KING HAS RETURNED 🎉🎉🎉

[@richardfinlayson1524]

If you have the experience of your reality changing in front of your eyes then its easier to accept that as a possibility.😊

[@triniview_official_7]

First let’s look at the word simulation. imitation of a situation or process What is imitation the action of using someone or something as a model. What could one mean when they say reality is a simulation? An echo perhaps? A hologram? A memory? The way our brains interpret sight sound smell and touch are merely an interpretation. Imitating an energy that we all clearly interact with 🤷🏽‍♀️

[@user-xj3xt1ik9e]

the mere fact of being able to doubt in a simulated reality is contradictory because if we imagine ourselves in a simulated reality the doubt itself is a form of freedom that machines would not like to give us. We are simply limited by our body and therefore by the language that our brain can process in relation to our senses.

[@newmonengineering]

I read a paper by quantum scientists that described our experience more like the movie avatar. Where our consciousness is a signal, that controls our body. Its not that we are in a simulation but rather we are in a physical world but the core of us is the frequencies that control our bodies.

[@kuritheking]

Forced to hand knowingness Born to question hand surety speaking of hands, the moving hand makes me understand words faster. keep it up 👍

[@Inaho452]

in my opinion there is not much point in fretting about wether the reality i experience is real or simulated. The life doesnt go away either way and it must be lived. There are consequences to my actions so i must act in a way according to that. Does it really matter if those consequences are actually true or just true in my mind?

[@alena-qu9vj]

It does not matter if the simulation calls something "true", but it matters WHAT are your actions and their consequences. In a game some actions lead to loss, other to win.

[@modernosfilosofos]

It's funny, I have just finished a paper defending Contextualism in Epistemology, with the aim of postulating the existence of unperceived sense data. This video is a great intro into the core issues of Epistemology.

[@DiegoEstevez-sd8ue]

I saw your video being uploaded yesterday, but I didn’t watch it till today, and I swear that the title was something different than it was this morning, maybe I am living in a simulation 😆

[@fromashestoangels378]

Is it just me or does this guy look like he could play a great villain role in a series/movie? Lmao.

[@tatsuya4887]

This whole video fucked me up, this is my third time watching it back😂. You got me perplexed brother

[@alexandertiberius1098]

I know that my hands exist, but I also know that my perception of my hands is false. If I bring them together, they touch, right? No. They don't. Ever. The reality is that electrostatic fields are repelling each other and no atoms are ever even in danger of a near miss. So, is it incorrect to say they touch? I dont think so. Edit: Turns out, I'm a contextualist. 😅

[@lucasking5376]

I think it's about 50-50 on whether or not we're in a skeptical scenario so it's completely pointless debating because if we are in a simulation we're in a simulation in a simulation within a simulation and it still hurts when you stub your toe

[@niki9433]

where are all those drawings from? for example 6:40 just curious lol thanks

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah they are just AI sketches. I like how they’re quite bad at drawing they create this sort of “uncanny” feel

[@alena-qu9vj]

"I trust table more that I trust you" Means in fact "I trust my scientifically proven imperfect and lying senses more than my questioning consciousness. Logically, in simulation, the table would be as "unreal" as the friend.

[@lorenzodossantos1111]

Well if you take it far enough you find yourself in columns of 1's and zero's. This simulation started a long time ago.

[@anti-christ.666]

In simple terms are knowledge is limited to our awareness and experience

[@GODFIDENCEINCHRIST]

I love this❤

[@facepalmjesus1608]

i love how people confuse ''simulation'' with ''depiction'' oh look! a ''human'' being in a video game! thus he is a simulated human! really? so does it count as simulated ''human'' being the Mona Lisa?

[@ForageGardener]

Decarte didn't say we live in a simulation he said our perception is unverifiable and known to be faulty and capable of being entirely arbitrary to so called "external" stimuli

[@chickenlover657]

Tell that to your foot when a brick falls on it.

[@theopinionatedbystander]

Knowledge is a perspective, and the more people that believe this perspective lends people to believe it a truth.. but all truths are transient. Undone by time, believers or disbelievers..

[@farshidmon3777]

How do you differentiate skepticism and solipcism, in a world view that you might be able to accept that you as a subjective experience, exist, but anything that you rationally conclude or percept, whether it is your hand or face might be hallucination? I am a bit confused since it is a phenomenon i face often in my work. Merleau Ponty argues that if hallucinations exist, and if a person who hallucinate might be unable to distinguish them from reality, then how can you argue that anything that you see is real. Obviously from the pragmatic prespective, you still have to follow to rule and enjoy the experience the best you can even if you are in a video game, so it does not make any difference. Also you can use the pascal's argument of existing god for it: suppose if there is 50% chance that we are in simulation and we will come out of it when we die, it is better to enjoy the experience while we can instead of wondering about it and spend our time being skeptical. Short said, i am not skeptical due to being pragmatic, but i can not rule the worldview out.

[@alena-qu9vj]

"...you still have to follow to rule and enjoy the experience the best you can even if you are in a video game..." I think this is the crucial point. If you are in a video game, your goal is to learn as much as you can to be able to move up to the higher level, otherwise you are stuck forever. I think this has very serious implications for the "enjoying" the experience in our everyday life.

[@idicula1979]

It’s important not to overthink, as your mind sometimes makes connections that aren’t even their, such is the need for our minds to find meaning. But one can avoid this if the betterment of humanity is at the ends of our meaning, and since a man is so complex thinking be so personal to one’s experience understandings can be a finite pursuit, but still have its noble ends.

[@yibaibashimu6223]

Man! That would have been such a great arguement if I hadn't just made it up in my mind.

[@user-nq7pd2ln8u]

Belief and truth are not interchangeable. That's step one

[@Dementia69]

Philosophy for your ,EVERYDAY LIFE. That is all.

[@LordofBright]

The belief is in knowing what these hands can do!

[@alastair6241]

Think also, would have been interesting to mention how one of the reasons the sceptical position is so strong is because it works in line with our intuitions that knowledge is certainty

[@radrickdavis]

If we cannot understand the language describing an outside world, could we understand messages from an outsider attempting to communicate with a person in the simulation? For example, could we understand a full description of what the real world is if we have no experience with that reality?

[@christiangraulau8107]

Even if we have no knowledge, we can still have predictions, and some level of confidence in our predictions. The only caveat with that is that there might be no real basis for measuring confidence Also, hands could just be an illusion The skeptical challenge is relevant because acceptance of the lack of certain knowledge can increase humility which can help us navigate the environment we do perceive Technically we could be speaking the same language as outside the vat, we just wouldn’t be able to prove or falsify that idea. Also, even if we left the simulation, we could just then start questioning whether wherever we find ourselves in is also a simulation

[@rennor3498]

One argument which fascinated me about how the reality in which we live in may or may not be real is based on a assumption regarding change. This essentially follows a pre-socratic philosophical position developed, or more accurately ''discovered" by the ancient greek philosopher Heraclitus which argues that everything that is in the world which we live in is in a constant flux or process of becoming, therefore everything is an abstraction that nullifies the possibility of it truly being as it is. Take a moment to think of something which has existed as itself without undergoing a change, if an object, being or even concept has ever truly been itself without being further expanded upon or undergoing it own gradual transformation (acctualization) or degeneration (depending on circumstance). Heraclitus liked to sum up his view on reality in the following quote: ''Nothing truly is, everything is becoming.'' From here a possibility of concieving a nihile of what may be noticed around is opened with the notion that things may exist in a contradiction, as mentioned earlier through the methodology of being itself but also not being itself The earlier argument regarding the reliability of assuming that the existance of one's hands is an example. While its true that picking something up or interacting with anything through their use only validates their existance, it also raises the question of arguing are those hands really your same hands as ever? You are born with hands and you possess them as parts that make up your body through the duration of your life but the hands that you have at the specific moment when you decide to contemplate their existance, are they exactly the same hands when you were born? The fingers would have grown longer, the muscle would have increased, strength of the grip and force would have also changed exponentially, the hand itself could be several times larger than that when you were born. So you would have the exact same hands as ever but at the same time these would not be the exact same hands as when they have come into existance. The issue from here is expanded as the mature hands will also graudally become more weaker, frailer, wrinkled and will lose most of their former strength as you become older and you are left with the hands with which you were born but also not at all the exact hands as when you were born; this would be a contradiction if accepted as true. An example i like when thinking of this theory is summed up in an analogy concerning a match: you have a match, you strike the match, the match burns out and what you are left with is the same match as before but also its not the same match. In this paradigm when thinking of a constantly changing world and how everything can have a potential of becoming or unbecoming, both variants still emboding change, questions regarding the reliability of anything existing might give credence to some about the possibility of it all being a simulation. It may seem a highly supeficial statement at first glance that appears to have been born from erroneous presumption and rash speculation , but it is also fascinating and maybe even often overlooked, since this attempts to explain why reality does not exist on the basis that nothing has a definitive final form from where a general truth could be inferred. Wonderful presentation. Keep up the excellent work!

[@alena-qu9vj]

""...While its true that picking something up or interacting with anything through their use only validates their existance..." How?? We do not even know what "existence" is. In a dream we also interact - does it validate that the dream images exist?

[@rennor3498]

@@alena-qu9vj ''How?? We do not even know what "existence" is... We cannot know what '' true existance'' is beyond what we may interact, sense and speculate while concieving a relation between ourselves and that which we have taken to conduct an analysis on. When we determine something that is, we also apply our own conscioussness and situation to it when defining it. For example, the sentence which you quoted from its original context takes into account the relation that we have with our own bodyparts. Those were only some examples of the qualities which a hand can have and I asserted it to be a vaild statement because I myself am in possession of the same appendages and can detect the same actions through the use of them as he does. If the exact same similar functions and qualities may be detected by our minds through the senses like touch, weight, strength while also being acknowledged by others as true, it would be within our need and interest to accept since it addresses a position that we ourselves could validate as well. This can then be applied to the outside world to formulate a general picture that we could live by: thus since i have hands because i can reason, feel and touch them, the rest of people who i can see or not yet see will be in the same situation with them as I. This would technically given my position be an inductive reasoning but would nontheless be a complete induction, or an induction most likely to be true. Dream images are based on a number of factors like the state of mind at the given time, feeling, memory and even imagination. Dreams could feature a variety of things we may have experienced while we were awake like colours, shapes, sounds, being, etc, which would validate perhaps the basic things which might make the background or define the moment. You can best view dreams as chimeras, they embody qualities which we could agree as deriving from sources which are true such as the example in the first preposition, but the whole cannot be agreed as being something in general unless the exact same situation was to experienced by more people. Another problem with dreams is that they manifest differently to the individual, some become a blur when you wake up although the sense that something happened while you were asleep remains, some are remembered only by the major things which took place in the mind, leaving gaps for the remainder of the episode, and generally speaking dreams begin with no prior knowledge of what led to you waking up in the said action to begin with. All these only make dreams less likely to exist beyond our own mind. I hope this settled some questions.

[@FuckTheSimulation]

Speak for yourself, my friend. I do know what existence is. Some of us entered this construct with information from the real world. Very rare, I know, but it does happen.

[@AgentMurphy286]

@@FuckTheSimulationThat’s called delusional amigo. No one has a priory knowledge. What you have are beliefs and a sensitive ego that feels better when you assert your “superiority” [read as personal beliefs] over others. Its a facade. No one looks at a statement like the one you made and thinks to themselves “this guy is so much smarter than everyone else.”

[@Zex-4729]

I love philosophy and your videos are great and multifaceted. Could almost say you are not biased with all the context included but yeah good enough for educational purposes. My two cents: Recent research talks about human brain mostly "hallucinates" reality we experience more than it actually reflecting how reality is, also Putnam's argument is also a argument for solipsism which if you think about it can be a kind of brain in a vat, which is paradoxical. Everything we see and feel are in our mind and we have no proof it's outside of our mind, sure the object we refer to exists but it first exists in our mind first not outside, with this precedence it kinda ruins the whole argument. As for relevancy you could argue nothing in life ever matters.

[@AgentMurphy286]

Welcome to the lack of meaning club. We have three major flavors nihilists, existentialists, and absurdists. All come with a side of worrying/annoying your friends and family.

[@TheFirstManticore]

I have seen Rudy Lopez eat wasps. He says he also eats scorpions, but I have not seen him do it. But I am inclinedt to believe him, because I have seen him eat wasps. I do not know whethyer Jennifer's mom eats bees, but I am convinced it is possible.

[@Gitohandro]

Well if we live in a simulation and you're wondering how it's relevant, some people may try "Escape" the simulation, if you know what I mean 👀🔫💀☠️

[@Bryans_Legacy]

its funny i came to all of these conclusions without reading anything or debating with anyone or anything like that, that happens to me a lot in philosophy but i dont think i am alone

[@Elephantshew]

Figuring things out here. Meanwhile, I've lost another perfectly good shed.

[@ulisesdelarge9399]

My comment resembles that good old quote from "The Big Lebowski": "Yeah, well. That's just, like...your opinion, man." 😂

[@ChopStickSoSushi]

With the understanding of video games and the advancements in VR isn't it possible to conceptualize that we are merely the avatar being controlled by our self in a higher form, much like we would control the character on the screen of a video game. But I do like this video because it says it wouldn't matter because this is reality as we know it regardless of if there is a better one or different one we may also be a part of.

[@Laszer271]

The simulation argument puts forward that at some point we will be creating our own simulations with our own simulated beings living inside them. Those simulated being won't have a completely foreign and irrelevant language. As the world in the simulation would hold a subset of rules or some simplifications of our own world, it would make sense that the "vat people" would have at least a subset of tools, encoded in their language, needed to understand even the "outside world". In a sense, our "outside world" would have causal link to the language of our "vat people".

[@alena-qu9vj]

We DO have our own simulations - virtual games. The aim of their characters mostly is to learn some skills or do some deeds which would promote them to the next level. It is very logical to suppose, that should we be characters in a simulaltion, our goal would be the same.

[@Laszer271]

​@@alena-qu9vj The difference is that the characters in games are either pre-programmed or player-controled. No one would expect those characters to be self-concious. With the advent of AI we can however imagine characters that would act in the simulated world as if they were real and self-concious. At that point we will have to re-evaluate what self-conciousness is and whether simulated self-conciousness that is not distinguishable from real one should be treated as if it were real. In other words, I don't think we are similar to games' characters but we could be similar to some simulated characters in the future. Also, simulations are a broader term than just video games. I would wager that there are more scientific simulations than there are video games.

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@Laszer271 My point was the PRINCIPLE of the simulation, not the technical level of it. Of course a potentional creator of as complex a simulation as our "reality" would create a "game" more advanced than are our virtual games. Anyway, the principle would be the same - characters which do not realize they are acting within a game. In that respect our virtual games are just a imperfect reflection of our "reality".

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@Laszer271 My point has been the PRINCIPLE of the simulation, not the technical level of it. Of course I understand that our "reality" is far more complex and advanced that our virutal games. But the principle is the same - characters which do not realize they are acting within a game. In that respect our virtual games are just an imperfect reflection of our complex reality/simulation - and we are just unconscioulsy mimicking our own creator.

[@geladaas9879]

The point is not "how likely is it that x skeptical scenario is true" the point is that it COULD be true, that you can´t ever touch anything external because you perceive only things within your mind. I have had many times dreams where I check whether I´m dreaming or not (pinching my cheek, touching furniture etc) and I conclude that I am NOT dreaming. I´ve had dreams where I remember doing things for years (say, a dream where I have always been an animal etc). You really aren´t contending with the argument. It´s a perfect argument though: you can´t prove that something exists "beyond" because the moment you touch it or think it or whatever else, it´s proof that it´s "inside". Beyond that, as Nietzsche points out, what we call "knowledge" has to do with empathy, with a chain of associations built upon the most familiar, the initial experiences and thoughts. These initial experiences and thoughts are what we, paradoxically, know the LEAST about. It´s like explaining water to a fish. You can say "oh the fish is an expert" or you can notice that the fish likely has no concept of water even, because he has never been outside of water. The whole point of the "skeptical" exercise is to confront the reality that there is no external authority, there is nothing external that we can ever touch, for the same reason you can´t touch your right elbow with your right index finger. The reason why this "matters" is that the entire edifice of morals and philosophy and religion we live under is predicated upon the idea of "external authority" which is a really really stupid, self-contradictory idea. This is MASSIVELY important. I explain all this in detail in my "guide to the Superman series".

[@alena-qu9vj]

"...The reason why this "matters" is that the entire edifice of morals and philosophy and religion we live under is predicated upon the idea of "external authority" which is a really really stupid, self-contradictory idea. .." Up until this point I could relate, bit this is COMPLETELY false. Especially religion is NOT predicatet on "external authority" - even though churches want you to believe it. The very word "re-ligion" means "re-aligment" with the source from which we all originate and which is for ever part of us and we are part of it. Religion as in "spirituality" is individual endevour, individual path "back home". And it is this eternal God's sparkle in everyone of us which is the pure source of ethics and genuine religion.

[@alena-qu9vj]

ooops - religion = re-alignment

[@geladaas9879]

@@alena-qu9vj the monotheistic God is a transcendental one, same as Plato´s "ideal forms". He, by definition, is not "of this world". The core idea in Christianity and Judaism is that central fact; that he is not here, because he is ABSOLUTE while this realm of existence is predicated upon RELATIVITY. Jews even acknowledge this fact by calling God "Ein Sof": "sharing the Neoplatonic belief that God can have no desire, thought, word, or action, emphasized by it the negation of any attribute"... (look it up). God is pure "external authority" because he judges you, but he is not you. If you have a different idea, I commend you for healing yourself from vile nihilism to some extent, but you should recognize the structure of monotheism in our world, as it´s the central blight upon it.

[@geladaas9879]

@@alena-qu9vj not all religions are the same. Nihilist religions differ in crucial ways from polytheistic religions in key points, chief among them is the concept of EVIL, which is central to Christianity, by being completely absent from all polytheistic systems. There could be Gods or disease or pain, but not EVIL. The notion of EVIL is a really terrifying disease we must heal ourselves from, again, I am explaining just how to do that on my channel.

[@edhutch8946]

Thank you dude, for not being an idiot.

[@zacharybosley1935]

this one's gonna be fun...

[@TheScholarlyBaptist]

I literally was watching The Truman Show right before this 😂 This was a very good video tho. I think people have just stopped caring about anything, anytime a topic like this comes up in my life many people say I don’t know and I don’t care this is very dangerous and I think you’re Chanel is a great way for people to actually start asking the big questions in an engaging way.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! And I need to watch it, I’ve somehow never got round to it

[@iv3nomousi]

Major Premise: Our perceived reality is potentially a simulation created by an external force/civilization. Minor Premise: To meaningfully model or conceive of this external "real" world, we must imagine it through conceptual primitives and relations derived from our empirical experience (i.e. human-like agents, hierarchies, energy sources, etc.) Fallacious Conclusion: Therefore, the alleged originating "real" world must fundamentally adhere to anthropocentric frameworks and premises inherited from the very reality it is proposed to transcend. These sceptical hypotheses effectively become philosophically overengineered trapdoors to intellectual dead-ends. In grandiosely positing the existence of an external "base reality" from which our experiences supposedly derive, they attempt to Don Quixote-esquely model an alleged primordial domain. Take "The Matrix" from 1999 - "So let us amusingly unpack your masterful 'breakout' from the simulacra, oh aimless pixel-wrestlers! Upon supposedly piercing the veil, your pathetically unimaginative script still requires human survivors being harvested as literal battery sources by robotic imperialists cosplaying as middle-manager middle-ages feudalists. How...anti-climactically self-affirming of you!"

[@ManuelGonzales-ni9sh]

Oh boy! We're always inproving at getting so lost in semantics LOL...

[@QuinnKallisti]

I think that Putnam’s inference that the ability to question the reality and be sceptical as to the nature of the reality in which one exists is not an outright proof that we are therefore not in such a scenario… perhaps given certain things that are of questionable validity, such as genetic memory. Overtime a species encapsulated within simulation will always eventually become aware of the fact that they are in one, despite being in Lockstep with The local etymological progression of the language inside of the simulation.

[@siquod]

She skeptical challenge illustrates that some necessity for trust is inecapable. What or who to trust is your choice and responsibility.

[@Garblegox]

Yeah but are you sure?

[@marksharp3990]

"The only knowing is in knowing that you know nothing."

[@kayakMike1000]

I am skeptical of my skepticism. Mkay? Its meta skepticism.

[@alastair6241]

Saw a response to Putnam's argument that was pretty interesting. Imagine you develop all the right causal connections, but then literally like an hour ago, aliens come and plug you into a brain in a vat machine, and you enter an identical simulation unbeknownst to you. In that case, the language you use is still causally connected to 'reality', yet you're a brain in a vat. I guess you could rebut by saying something like the epistemic context has changed, or that the referents of your language are context dependent, but those sound like pretty question begging arguments.

[@73N5H1]

Whether it's a simulation or not doesn't change anything. We still experience our lives in the same way.

[@Otome_chan311]

You can say that about many true and correct things. Saying that a true statement doesn't change anything doesn't mean that it's suddenly false. Lions exist yet change nothing about my day to day life. Should I believe lions don't exist simply because they don't affect my life?