[#-3]

The entire "proof" for simulation theory is basically a case study in reductio ad absurdum.

I think of it as a fun thought experiment. But there is something that just pulls too hard against the instincts of self I have, so it would just require extraordinary evidence for it to begin shaping any of my thinking.

The fundamental thing any of us can be certain of is our own consciousness because the very process of pondering our own consciousness confirms its existence. Simulation theory requires that something is able to simulate consciousness. The simulator presumably would need to be a higher consciousness, all that achieves is moving the goal post on the ultimate existence of a "real" consciousness without any hope of an explanation. This is basically a re-expression of the final standing religious argument, expressing the need for a first mover, the proficiency with which science has taken down all of the other religious arguments gives me great faith that we will some day have an answer for this one too.

All I get out of proponents of simulations theory is "If there's and if a simulation can create a simulation, then there must be so many simulations it's a mathematical probability that we are in a simulation." 3 big problems in bold, and no explanation of why they think such an expansive simulation would exist in the first place.

**I am explicitly referencing Descartes here, even if he used the same first principal to jump to a bunch of bad conclusions.**