We know one non-simulation is necessary and zero simulations are necessary. Currently I can only identify one reality. I'm going to assume it's the necessary one.

Chances are not 50-50, they are 100-0. It’s a matter of consistency: we have no way to deny that we live in a simulation, because it is the result of assuming the existence of reality. It is a logical necessary consequence: if reality exists, then we live in a simulation. This reasoning seems strange at first sight because we have been strongly and deeply induced to forget subjectivity.
The reasoning, in a more detailed way, is the following one.

1) If we assume that reality exist, we are forced to assume the existence of something opposed to reality: it is logically impossible to think of anything without assuming the existence of something that is not-that-thing. For example, you can’t think of number 10 without assuming the existence of something that is not number 10. We can’t think of stones without assuming the existence of something different from a stone.

2) What is that thing different from reality, that we implicitly assume when we think of reality? It is our brain, our subjectivity. If something is non-real, then it exists only in our brain. If something doesn’t exist in our brain, nor in reality, then we aren’t thinking of it, it is not even an hypothesis: if we conjecture the existence of something that we ignore, then it is already in our brain. We can’t escape, we can’t think of things that are not in our brain: if we do, then they are already in our brain and we can’t avoid thinking of them in ways conditioned by our brain.

3) So, if we want to consider reality in a honest way, we can’t ignore the involvement of our brain in this consideration. So, this is the cage we can’t escape: our brain. It is humanly impossible to think without using our brain and this is exactly the problem.

4) This means that the assumption of the existence of reality leads us to the necessary conclusion that we have no way to think about it, because, as soon as we think about it, we must realize that we are doing it from inside the cage that is our brain.

5) If we have no way to think about reality, than it doesn’t exist; the only way it can exist is as an illusion of our brain. This is actually a contradiction and it really is: in an elementary way, we can just say: if something exists, then it doesn’t. If being exists, then it doesn’t. It is the exact opposite of the deceptive principle of non-contradiction said by Parmenides.

6) As an obvious consequence, I need to apply what I said to itself. The consequence is that what I have said hasn’t any realiability, can’t be considered something true. This is the usual answer to relativists: if you say that everything is relative, then you are pretending to say something that isn’t. But this reasoning is wrong, because it ignores time, it ignores that what I have said is in a process, it’s not something happening outside time. This makes us remember that the whole reasoning I made started from the assumption the reality exists. It is that assumption that comes to be a contradiction. So, my whole reasoning is for sure unreliable, but this doesn’t open any possibility that the assumption of reality could be possible, because it was exactly our starting point.

7) This just means that we live in an illusion and we don’t know what it is. We can make some idea of it just by adopting some assumptions that actually are contradictory. This just confirms that we live in the cage of our brain and we can’t escape it. The only way to imagine our cage is from inside our cage, which doesn’t help us to gain any better assumption.

8) If anybody would like to refute what I have said, they can’t do it without using their brain, so, I and they are in the same condition. The only difference I can try to make is adding my admission that what I said is totally unrealiabe. If somebody else doesn’t admit this about himself, then they are just ignoring their limits, their cage, their brain.

If existence is a simulation how would that change how we see the laws of physics and how we interpret scientific discovery. — SteveMinjares

Nothing, really. Empirical science does not strictly speaking make a claim to represent basic ontological reality. That is itself an interpretation and not a necessary one.

Will that mean metaphysics science bare more relevance than physical science? — SteveMinjares

No. Science would remain just as useful.

If the simulation hypothesis is true than why bother with the external? Saying reality is a simulation is just a scientific way of saying reality is an illusion which further proves my last point I made a while back “time is an illusion”. The only true reality is really a matter of perspective of the mind. — SteveMinjares

Regardless of the ontological status of the external, it's nevertheless in your interest to avoid the very real pain and suffering that it causes. Jumping off a cliff because "reality is an illusion" isn't a good idea.

This thought was inspired by this article.

“Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50” - By Anil Ananthaswamy on October 13, 2020 — SteveMinjares

The math behind this is unfortunately mostly good sounding nonsense.

If existence is a simulation how would that change how we see the laws of physics and how we interpret scientific discovery. Will that mean metaphysics science bare more relevance than physical science? — SteveMinjares

It all comes down to whether or not we can, even in theory, become aware of and demonstrate that our reality is a simulation created by someone else's technology. If we can't, then it wouldn't change anything. A simulation that is completely consistent and indistinguishable from our everyday reality is that everyday reality. If we can show we live in a simulated reality, we've just opened up a new scientific discipline. Or religion maybe.

If we assume that reality exist, we are forced to assume the existence of something opposed to reality: — Angelo

Mine are called dreams.
Number 2 seems to lack information content. 3.Generally the existence of brains is presupposed.

This means that the assumption of the existence of reality leads us to the necessary conclusion that we have no way to think about it — Angelo

Number 4 doesn't follow and is arguably being demonstrated as false by it's utterance.

If we have no way to think about reality, than it doesn’t exist — Angelo

Well we do have a way so it does by your logic.

realiability — Angelo

I didn't read past this word. The world is judgmental.

Nothing here talks about a computer that is running a simulation. Rather, it is a series of assertions that having your brain located in your skull makes the world a simulation.

Chances are not 50-50, they are 100-0. It’s a matter of consistency: we have no way to deny that we live in a simulation, because it is the result of assuming the existence of reality. — Angelo

We do not live in a simulation. Or if we do none of the stated reasons compel us to believe it. Demonstrating the use of a brain is not evidence in support of your argument. Because, it begs the question and is marginally absurd.

"I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." ~Conan of Cimmeria — Queen of the Black Coast, 1934

(Emphasis is mine.)

A simulation that is completely consistent and indistinguishable from our everyday reality is that everyday reality. If we can show we live in a simulated reality, we've just opened up a new scientific discipline. Or religion maybe. — T Clark

That's my view too.

"I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." ~Conan of Cimmeria — Queen of the Black Coast, 1934

Conan the Barbarian Philosopher

1) If we assume that reality exist, we are forced to assume the existence of something opposed to reality: it is logically impossible to think of anything without assuming the existence of something that is not-that-thing. For example, you can’t think of number 10 without assuming the existence of something that is not number 10. We can’t think of stones without assuming the existence of something different from a stone. — Angelo

This is just the pointless why is there something rather than nothing argument. Not much of a foundation for a broad ontological understanding.

2) ...If something is non-real, then it exists only in our brain... — Angelo

The simulation hypothesis does not propose something non-real. It only proposes something beyond our normally perceived "reality." If there is a computer somewhere running the T Clark's Universe Program, it is part of reality, just beyond our ability to detect it.

3) So, if we want to consider reality in a honest way, we can’t ignore the involvement of our brain in this consideration. So, this is the cage we can’t escape: our brain. It is humanly impossible to think without using our brain and this is exactly the problem. — Angelo

I don't disagree with this, but I don't see how it's relevant to the simulation theory.

4) This means that the assumption of the existence of reality leads us to the necessary conclusion that we have no way to think about it, because, as soon as we think about it, we must realize that we are doing it from inside the cage that is our brain. — Angelo

I'm thinking about it right now. I'm doing it from inside the cage that is my mind. Ok, ok, sorry. Let's not get into the whole mind/brain kerfuffle.

5) If we have no way to think about reality, than it doesn’t exist; the only way it can exist is as an illusion of our brain. — Angelo

See response to your Item 4.

6) As an obvious consequence, I need to apply what I said to itself. The consequence is that what I have said hasn’t any realiability, can’t be considered something true... — Angelo

I don't understand this argument at all.

This just means that we live in an illusion and we don’t know what it is. — Angelo

Again, I agree but it's not relevant to the simulation issue.

8) If anybody would like to refute what I have said, they can’t do it without using their brain, so, I and they are in the same condition. — Angelo

Ditto.

There. [irony] I'm sure I convinced you that I'm correct, so we can move on to something else. [/irony]

By Crom! :fire:

Never heard of him. Looked him up.

If it could be detected somehow, the technology used to detect this simulation could be useful for physics(?) or whatever relevant science.

But if it is only postulated not shown, it makes no difference at all.