>>10905274There's a proof against it based on there not being enough computing power possible in our universe to ever be able to simulate a universe in a way that produces all the little details that can be verified as existing and consistent from observation to observation.
But this proof depends on the assumption the meta-universe simulating us is similar to or identical to our own universe. If it's completely off the wall different in ways we can't even begin to appreciate then you can't really say anything about basic shit like what "large" or "small" mean in their context.
Also you could always argue the simulation we're in itself is nowhere close to the detailed observable universe we believe we have knowledge of i.e. The meta-universe programmers are just screwing with our perception and any time we think we have evidence of highly consistent little details that wouldn't be feasible for a meta-universe programmer to capture we could just be like in a dream where you're fed the conclusion of a narrative idea and go along with it as though it really were true even though the dream never bothered to actually go through the trouble of having you experience the event that never happened but which you're now under the impression did happen.
That last one might sound unlikely, but it would be pretty easy to accomplish. None of us are really in a position to do a robust verification of all the rigorously worked out knowledge we assume mankind has amassed over the millennia. No matter who you are, you're leaving huge amounts of it out because you can't be autistically obsessed, hyper-knowledgeable expert in every subject that's ever existed. If any one morning it turned out that despite believing you're in your 30s and have been waking up and going through a routine every day for your entire adult life you are actually an artificially created entity who didn't exist prior to the minute you woke up, you wouldn't necessarily have any way of knowing.
