love this, agree wholeheartedly

Yeah but the information available to us (if we are in a simulation) including all the laws of physics that present us with the upper limits of computational speed, could have been created in a reality where the laws of physics are totally different.

For example take any video game you can think of and think of all the unrealistic physics?

pffhorest's argument is good, but if base reality has far more particles and thus we assume far more observers, all it does is increase the chances of you being higher up the simulation line

Its is more likely you are in base reality than simulation 1 and more likely you are in simulation 1 than simulation 2 etc because of the smaller size

But it is not more likely that you are in base reality compared to ANY simulation, because the size disparity is unknown,

If base reality can generate a simulation that is 99% the size of base reality, using techniques to harness energy that are just unfathomable to us, and simulation 2 is 99% the size of simulation 1, obviously youd assume the technology in each simulation isnt as good as the previous ones so the percentage would drop...the likelyhood of you being in base reality or the first few simulations is far higher than you being in the billionth simulation.

When i refer to simulation number i mean tech jump, like if simulation 1 generated 6 quadrillion simulations, those 6 quadrillion simulations are all simulation 2, because if max amount of particles is less than 100% you couldnt have multiple simulations succeeding 100% BR.


If only base reality and simulation one existed, its an almost 50/50 chance you are in either, slightly favouting BR, add all the other simulations within simulations and it favours simulation.

However if we are only using the laws of physics in our reality as part of the argument then sure agreed its more likely we are in BR by a huge amount.

Jacob

If you conceptualise nothing as a formless entity predicated on the absence of particulars, sure

If true "nothingness" to you is however the absence of comprehension itself, something that cannot be given a word, something that cannot be described something that makes the notions commonly associated with the word 'nothing' feel like a pebble thrown in to the ocean, then perhaps not.

Because you would not find a relation between your conceivable somethings and the nothing.
If you had this view when I say the word nothing you would feel as if I am not talking about anything, anything atall, for it is impossible to know what it is.

It is like saying what would there be if I took away everything? Would there be nothing?
I don't think its far fetched to say contemplating nothing doesn't exist, the moment you think of whatever you are confusing with nothing, it becomes something.

If there were no particulars to observe, how would we formulate an idea of what would be without them?
Once we attribute some thought to the common idea of "nothing" it isnt nothing anymore.

I don't believe in proof of particulars myself, I only believe there that there is proof that there is.

Furthermore I like to say that what exists rather 'exists' independant of how we structure it in our minds, and that true nothing is not something we can comprehend.

I don't think anything is undeniable other than the statement that there is.

Jacob