>>11043958>And even if by this chain of logic you should ever reach some "base reality", why should that reality be the base?It shouldn't. To any observer it might as well be an infinite regression and the location of the base reality will forever remain a known unknown
>And if you allow for such a reality, why can't it just be this one?It's just a question of really simple probability
>simulation is the same as god in terms of being an explanation for existenceIt doesn't pretend to be that outside of perhaps youtube popsci videos. It's just a thought experiment on what happens when you assume mediocrity as an observer. Perhaps we will discover something that changes our understanding of what an observer is and problems like it and similar ones like Boltzmann brains are, finally, eliminated
Like this anon points out
>>11044468, it does feel like we are on the cusp of answering it relatively soon
