We live in a simulated reality

````` 1)Con: So, one person has express that it is. That is not evidence, that is one opinion. It is the logical fallacy of "argument from authority". `````----- James Gates did provide the adinkras that he is talking about and the math and equations that go with it. ````` 2)Con: If we live in a simulation, a simulation of what? If it is the simulation of an actual Universe, so well crafted as to be indistinguishable from that actual Universe, then we would not be able to distinguish such, by definition. It would thus be impossible to ascertain that we are in a simulation. `````----- Most simulations do not well represent the reality that we live in, so there's no reason to think another reality's simulations would seem just like it. If you were born in a completely abstract world, you wouldn't know it was abstract. You'd just think that's what reality is like. ````` 3)Con: If we are merely digital avatars created and controlled by some outside entity, then they would have control over our though processes- they would control what we believe. `````----- Maybe, maybe not. There's no necessity to control us. They could sit back and watch with no intervention. They could intervene. They could also start it up and walk away. It's all theoretical. ````` 4)Con: If it is their desire that we believe we exist in a real Universe, they could easily include that in our programming. `````----- They could do a lot of things. In our reality, the evidence is there whether intended or not. ````` 5)Con: The very fact we are able to contemplate the idea that we live in a simulation is powerful evidence that we don't. `````----- Not necessarily. Maybe the creators/creator wants has no problem with us knowing, and is amused by it, or he/she planned it that way. ````` 6)Con: At least sufficient to render the definitive statement that we do falsified. `````----- The evidence is there, whether intentional, false, programmed, brainwashed, etc. And what we have to go on is only the evidence. ````` 7)Con: here-https://cosmosmagazine.com...... is the claim that it has been definitively debunked. `````----- a)After claiming that we could be programmed to believe anything, I use Con's argument against him. You could be programmed to believe it has "been debunked", the scientists could be programmed to believe they debunked it, etc. b)There are articles that debunk the debunking. https://www.theguardian.com... In Con's article, its "proof" we aren't living in a simulation is that metal can't be simulated in a simulation. But the fact is, if you were born in a simulation, you wouldn't know what metal was like here to know the difference. It's very, very poor logic. ````` 8)Con: I don't necessarily agree with the definitiveness of that statement, but it certainly shows there is enough conjecture to render a definitive statement in the affirmative falsified `````----- Con has not given reason to disbelieve the findings of the Physicist, James Gates. He has given us theoretics, which isn't proof or evidence. What I have given you is the actual mathematics and findings of an actual Physicist who was the Science Advisor to the President of the United States.