You are sitting on a simulating machine and the whole world you see around you in not real

In Round 2, I have shown some arguments against your assertion with some philosophical logic. I have given arguments using only thought, and such arguments did not rely on any of the five senses. You have ignored these arguments in Round 2, and instead are still harping on the evidence I gave in Round 1. To drive my point home, I will reiterate some of what was stated in Round 2. These are arguments that rely on inherent logic, and are not going to touch on the reality of the things I hear, see, smell, taste, and touch. Ignoring all of these senses by claiming that all of the stimuli are simulated, I can still show an inconsistency in your statement. Indeed, I believe I have already done so in Round 2. Here we go: If everything around me is a simulation, one must admit that it is an incredibly awesome and detailed simulation. This so-called simulation contains a vast wealth of literature, an extremely diverse variety of cultures and customs, and various different climates and environments. This so-called simulation also contains very rich and diverse life forms. From bacteria and amoebae, to blue whales and elephants, to bees and ants with their own social structures, to creatures of the deep waters exhibiting bioluminescence. The motions of the planets and stars, with phenomena in space such as quasars, pulsars, black holes, and supernovae is also very complex. So you claim that all of these things are simply a simulation, and I am in a video game analogous to one of the games featuring Mario. Yet I work 5 days a week for 8 hours a day. I also sleep for 8 hours a day. I also eat 3 times a day. Now I know that you said a day in simulation equals only an hour in "reality." But this is still excessive. This so-called video game will have me sitting at a desk or sleeping for 40 minutes out of every hour!! And the 20 minutes remaining has me take a time out 3 times to eat!! Talk about a lame video game. Going back to all of the wondrous things I mentioned, the inconsistency can clearly be seen. A person that would create such an incredible simulation (and anyone would have to admit that if this is a simulation, it is truly incredible) would not create such a terrible video game. A simulation creator that takes the time to include microscopic organisms, water bears, rotifers, bacteria, and viruses to name a few, would certainly take great care in anything created. A simulation creator that would create the vast wealth of literature, the planets, the stars, the creatures of the deep ocean, the various landscapes on Earth, and the various religions and cultures, obviously takes a lot of time and care in everything he or she does. Now you want me to believe that after taking the time to create all of that, we wind up with a video game where 20 minutes of every hour is wasted on sitting at a desk. Another 20 minutes is wasted on the character (i.e. me) sleeping. Take into account times when the so-called simulated pathogens make me ill, and you have me doing nothing for days (or hours after conversion). It doesn't make sense. Such a wondrous and incredible simulation is highly inconsistent with such a boring video game. Such inconsistency leads one to rationalize that your assertion of me being a simulation is HIGHLY implausible. So implausible, that I must conclude it doesn't exist. Furthermore, if you are the one that is supposed to reveal the truth to me, wouldn't it be done much more efficiently? Why through some debating website? Wouldn't I be encountered by a person (character) placed in the simulation if there was a simulated program to reveal the truth to me? Revelation over the internet seems like a very half-hearted attempt, especially considering all of the work that had to be put into this simulation. So, in addition to your argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org...), everything else also seems inconsistent. And, as stated earlier, even if you claim that the quotes and philosophy are from simulations, that does not render them invalid. There are plenty of lessons that can be learned through fictional characters. Negating the existence of philosophers like Russell does not negate the philosophy itself. To believe in this simulation is not pragmatic, and therefore I reject it. I believe others reading this will see that I'm justified in doing so. In conclusion, your simulation contains enough inconsistencies (lame video game, half-hearted attempt to show me true reality) that it must be rejected as something that does not exist.