Bro this is intense think about it wtf,(reply>), It really isn’t. First off, there is more nuance to the assumption he hides as some logical consequence that naturally follows the pace of tech innovation than meets the eye. Simulating the world is a little more than just technology we haven’t reached - it makes several assumptions about the inherent nature of the universe that are completely unknown. Let me explain:     <br><br>The idea here is that if one day we reach a point where we can simulate ourselves, the number of those simulations would imply the likelihood of our world being one of those. Yet, it’s entirely possible (very probable, imo) that it’s impossible to simulate a human race that is capable of contemplating whether it exists in a simulation without it eventually proving/disproving that conjecture. I think this is important to acknowledge, but also it doesn’t explicitly mean anything about the possibility of our simulation. <br><br>The real problem is that we now have an infinite loop. If our ability to simulate =&gt; we are a simulation, then that logic applies both ways, meaning that both our parent world is most likely a simulation and the worlds we simulate will eventually run into the same situation in which they decide they must be in simulations because they are running them. So actually, the odds of you being in a simulation are infinitely low compared to the odds of you being inside a simulation that’s inside a simulation that’s inside a simulation.... etc. And even if you are a simulation nested inside 100 simulations inside of simulations, the odds of you being inside of THAT simulation is still infinitely small. Because there is still infinitely more simulations within the simulations (of simulations of simulations etc) that you are running. As I’m typing I actually got to the part where Lex brings this up.<br><br>The guest tries to address this by imposing some type of size limit. This is yet another fallacy. This implies the existence of a “final layer” of simulations which don’t have enough memory left to simulate, which means they have no reason to ever question whether they are in a simulation, which means that they are actually a simulation inside the nth simulation of the real world yet have no ability to simulate and no suspicion that they are being simulated. <b>THAT</b> means that the ability to simulate carries no implications about the nature of your reality whatsoever: the one REAL world is simulating and not inside of a simulation, and the MOST SIMULATED worlds (which coincidentally would be the layer containing the most simulated worlds) is being simulated with no ability to simulate. This nullifies the logic of the original idea behind this dumbass theory. So upon closer inspection, the “simulated world” theory is actually the dumbest, least plausible version of creationism mankind has infected itself with to-date. That really is saying something. <br><br>Now, since we’ve explored some ideas regarding infinite probabilities, let me ask you this: humans have, since our earliest known history, tried to accurately explain the existence of both ourselves and our environment. There is essentially an infinite number of hypotheses about what the universe is and how it works. We know that not a single one has ever been complete &amp; true enough to explain everything we can see and measure (otherwise science would be finished and particle collider a would all be useless and obsolete.) We also know that of all possible explanations, only one can be correct - the “real answer” to everything we don’t know. So given these three known truths, what is the probability that any given thought that passes through any given persons mind IS that one true answer? And what are the odds that said probability is at all affected by how popular that idea is among one particular species of animal belonging to one planet of one solar system (out of tens of billions) of one galaxy (out of hundreds of billions)?