It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality (2)

I thank Con for their reply.1) It is possible to create a simulated realityCon says "We have absolutely no reason to believe that this is physically possible"Premise 1 does not state that the simulated reality has to be physical. It is not a necessary condition that the simulated reality be "physical".Con says " there's no reason to think that it is physically possible; the burden of proof is on him to show that it is."Once again, it is not a necessary pre condition that the simulated reality be physical.Con says " At the very least, it's metaphysically possible, but that brings nothing to the topic at hand, because we're talking about this world, not any possible other world."Our world doesn't have to be a world where its possible to create a simulated reality, after all, as this arguments shows, our so called world is probably a simulated world.2) If something/s can create a simulated reality then it probably willCon says "My opponent attempts to say that just because something is able to do something, it will."This is a strawman. I never argued that just because something can do something, necessarily it follows that it will. I clearly argued that if something can create a simulated reality then its more likely that it will than it won't, and I gave some possible reasons.Con says "There's no reason to think that ability entails probability. I have the ability to go do many things, but there's almost no reason for me to do so."Indeed, unless there is a reason or reasons for you too do these things. I listed possible reasons why something with the ability to create a simulated reality would.Con says "a: He is anthropomorphizing said creature; there's no reason to think they'd have similar motivations."There is no reason to think that they don't have anything in common with humans either. As long as they have a reason, then its follows it is more probable they will.CA = Counter ArgumentCA: Cons Reality made of sub atomic marsh mellows argument-- CA 2) If something/s can create a reality made of sub-atomic marshmallow, then it probably will (Fun, tastes good, profit, and so forth) ---This argument doesn't show its more probable, cause if they wanted to eat marshmallows its is more probable that they would just create marshmallows than create a reality of sub atomic marshmallows.Sure it might be fun, but is this the best they could come up with ? I think they can do better than that.Profit ? maybe, but obviously if they were seeking profit, then they would create a reality which would be the most wanted. Is marshmallows the most wanted ? I doubt it.Cons very specific simulated reality is less likely than a general simulated reality that I referred too , thus its an ineffective rebuttal.CA Part 3: Simulated = RealCon says "That is to say, to calculate the products of all chemical reactions in the universe, there's no reason to think that the best calculator for this wouldn't just be the universe itself. In other words, the only way to represent the universe computationally, is with the universe itself. If the universe were simulated by something far larger, than it's only simulated from their perspective,I don't recall the universe being shown to be a giant calculator. But in any case, Con implies that the thing that is doing the calculating needs to be bigger than the simulated reality it is calculating. Even in our universe this is proven false, you don't need a calculator the size of a car, to calculate how fast its going. What matters is calculation power, not physical size.CA: Part 4: Inference to the Best ExplanationCon asks "MSH is weaker further because it can't explain the consistency that we see in the world: Why would a simulated reality behave as this world does, beyond it just being this world? "Why would a real world reality behave as this world does, beyond it just being a real word ?Con argues that their real world hypothesis has better "explanatory" power. Even if this is true, so what ? How does this refute any of the premises in the argument ? It doesn'tCon says "Us being in the real world is the best explanation for why we perceiving things as being in the real world, without having to come up with theories that tell us otherwise, with no strong reason to believe these alternate hypothesis. By logical abduction, the RWH is most likely."The sun circling the earth was the "best explanation" for why we perceive the sun rising up, and the sun going down too, how did that work out ? Obviously what we "seem" to "perceive" has be proven false time and time again. My argument is based on reason, not what is "perceived", so once again, how does any of this refute any of the premises in the argument ?Con says " with no strong reason to believe these alternate hypothesis. By logical abduction, the RWH is most likely. "I just gave you a reason to believe in an alternative hypothesis, and your justification for the RWH has been shown to be flawed. So it is not the case that the RWH is the most likely.I look forward to Cons reply.