>>13495950>Oh? Please expand.1. There is no basis or observations which provide any reason for anyone to believe this
2. There is no given way to measure this that can be justified
>It is not absurd; it is expected.>providing nothing to justify contrary remarkHence the entire proposition is absurd.
>>13496074>And? The universe is fundamentally absurd and paradoxical;>X is absurd and paradoxically>b-but Y happened and i'm going to assert that it's absurd and paradoxical>therefore X is okay to believeCompletely fallacious. This is a false equivalence. In the case of a "simulated universe" there is no observable evidence. In the case of our universe existing, you're here and you see it with your own eyes. No comparison.
>there is literally no comprehensible origin for the universe that isn't a paradox.There doesn't have to be a comprehensible origin of the universe. But it exists because you exist and you can see it does exist and there is tangible evidence it exists.
>It doesn't exist within the frame of human logic.In the case of the universe, it doesn't have to exist within any logical systems. It literally exists in the empirical experience of a human being. You don't have to appeal to logic to say you exist. You feel the effects of yourself existing. In the case of a simulation, there may be no way to tell the difference either way whether or not you're in an original universe or whether or not you're just in a simulation. The simulation hypothesis is something you either blindly succumb to or you wisely reject.
