>>13581729Isn't the problem arbitrary? If this is a simulation, then that doesn't change your life experience, your responsibilities, your potential value and purpose to the existence you live in.. etc.
If you're a theist then you can say that we're living in God's simulation, if you're an atheist you can say that we're living in the simulation of an advanced species. If you deny simulation and propose that our universe is the most "real" iteration of existence possible (we are at the top), then that is still functionally no different from being in physics simulation without a creator (separate argument for how we could exist without a creator). I think when other people say that Kant has unraveled the problem they may mean more that Kant's work has made the problem irrelevent, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
