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

I thank Con for their response.1) It is possible to create a simulated realityCon asks "Recall that in C2 I said that my opponent needs to clarify what it is for something to exist in a simulated reality, otherwise it is unhelpful to understanding the situation. "I refer Con to the definition given in the first round "Simulated Reality = Simulated reality is the proposition that reality could be simulated—perhaps by computer simulation—to a degree indistinguishable from "true" reality."Con says "Because something is metaphysically possible, that does not mean that it is possible in this world or in this given reality" & "My argument was thus: My opponent needs to give us a reason that the physical reality we live in could be simulated"If con is saying that's its impossible for our world to be a simulated world, then on what basis does con claim this ? Absent any reason to the contrary, then it is indeed possible that "our" world is a simulated reality.CA: 2. Argument from substitutionCon says "his argument could just as easily be made for an argument that we are more likely to be in a real reality."Then show how.CA: 3. Argument on possibilityCon says "None the less, because BoP is on both sides, he should be forced to defend what this sort of reality would be like if it weren't physical in the non-philosophical sense"Why ? Premise 1 doesn't make any claim about what "type" of simulated reality would be, other than it being a simulated reality.Con says "In other words, there is no interaction between a metaphysically close world and this world, because the possible worlds theory only stipulates their existence, not any interaction. "If a world is a simulated reality, then its a necessary that a real world is in casual relations with the simulated reality, since a simulated reality can't exist without a real world that was the origin of its existence, as Con later says "Assumption: All possible worlds where there is the possibility for there to be a simulated reality have a real reality, because otherwise there would be nowhere to ground the simulation."CA: A: Horn 1, Physical possibility Con says "The argument was that were we to be in a physical reality, the only thing that is epistemically possible is that we are simulated by the matter itself, and we are being manipulated by something vastly larger" & "In order to simulate a reality, it would have to be chunked out of mass. This shows that even if we are a "simulated" reality, our reality is still the way we perceive it."Once again, my argument never said that a simulated reality has to be physical, it can appear physical but it doesn't have to be physical.CA: B: Horn 2, metaphysical possibilityCon says "First argument: To say that because it is metaphysically possible, that it is more probable is a non-starter to take, "Been over this, I clearly provide more argument to justify the probability argument, I never argued just because something is possible that in its self makes it more probable over its negation.Con presents the following argument........1. [All possible worlds] contain [worlds with simulations]2. [All possible worlds] > [worlds with simulations], since for each world with a simulation, there could be an identical without.C: There are more possible worlds than worlds with simulations. Using my opponent's syllogism, it is more probable we live in a real worldI agree that there "could be an identical world without", but I provided argument why it is more probable that something with the capacity to create a simulated world would, and would also create more than 1, thus its is more likely that there are more simulated realities than real realities.CA: 4: Inference to the best explanation.Con says "Hence, since my opponent completely drops all of the pseudo-location arguments, you can easily see why we're more likely to exist in a real reality, rather than a simulated reality; it's far more parsimonious, as it requires far less stuff, while providing the same amount of explanation as any skeptical hypothesis can give. "I thank Con for bringing this to my attention.Con says "So when I see a cat in my opponent's ISH, I'm not actually seeing a cat, I'm seeing a pseudo-cat with all the pseudo-properties that a real cat would have"I would also point out, that you don't need a real cat to exist, in order to simulate one, that's the great things with simulated realities, you don't have to simulate things that are real.Con had said "1. It has more explanatory value, because rather than having to posit what it is that these pseudo-locations, properties, and so forth are, it lets me just call these things locations, properties, and so forth.2. There's no need to posit extra "stuff". I have no reason to add on the pseudo, if I get just as good an explanation"Con themself posits extra "stuff" when they add to their perception of the cat. If Con does perceive a cat, then why add the extra stuff of "real" to it. If adding "Pseudo" is unwarranted, why isn't adding "real" unwarranted to our feline friend ?I ask Con to justify this, if not then its a double standard and thus undermines the RWH as being more likely.Con says "Something is only the best explanation if it can account for all of the relevant information,"How does the real world Hypothesis explain why our world is the real world ? How does it explain why our world even exists ?Seeing it doesn't account for all relevant information, doesn't this by your own standard show that the RWH is not the best explanation ?Once again the RWH is undermined.I look forward to Cons response.