Something that I am still confused about: If you assumed we were in a simulation, would that not destroy your evidence completely? After all, you should not be able to derive any feature of the bottom world from the features of the simulation, including any evidence on whether there are a lot of simulations. Am I missing something or does that mean it is not possible to argue about this usefully because the nature of the evidence changes every time I assume sim/non-sim?
Something that I am still confused about: If you assumed we were in a simulation, would that not destroy your evidence completely? After all, you should not be able to derive any feature of the bottom world from the features of the simulation, including any evidence on whether there are a lot of simulations. Am I missing something or does that mean it is not possible to argue about this usefully because the nature of the evidence changes every time I assume sim/non-sim?