That's the pot calling the kettle black now isn't it. Remember when you called me irrational along with anyone else who thinks we are living in a simulation. And yet here you are still not understanding the point I have tried to make but still think I missed your point. How is that relevant? Refer back to the theory. It doesn't matter when it happens, all that matters is the possibility it could happen at some point. If there is any chance that at some point in the distant future humans are capable of simulating their existence then chances are it has already happened and we are actually in a simulation. Why do you need me to share the current state of technology with you or the experts opinions of how far away technology is from being powerful enough to simulate a human brain? You can see the current state of AI as it was widely broadcast recently. You can also read expert opinion on how close our technology is to having the processing power to simulate a brain and when they suspect we are likely to reach the processing power required. Again no. Again you have missed mine. You can't prove anything is fact. Your facts are based on your faith. You have chosen to believe something. We all choose to believe things. You believe in this thing you call reality, you can't prove that we are not in a simulation. You can't prove that your reality hasn't been altered by what we might call gods or supernatural forces. You can't prove there isn't a devil that leaves fake evidence or deceives you into believing lies. Your safe place is your perceived facts. If they are challenged you believe the people who think so must be irrational or dumb. Like it or not your safe place is as much a faith as theirs. And if you want to simply ignore a possibility because you do not like it, then you don't understand science. Because the idea of Simulation is not supernatural, it is not magic, it is something that can be understood by science. The problem is the existence of the idea means our science has a potential point of failure if we are actually living in a simulation. That is because at any time what we perceive as reality can be altered by things outside of our simulation. Remember in science we must remove outside influence that might alter the result. I have. It really is pretty arrogant of you to assume that I have not. You have no idea what I have learned or experienced. Despite appearances I have not shared much with you here. I'm not here trying to defend my beliefs, that would be silly. I'm arguing an idea, a concept. You said that believing in Simulation is irrational. My argument has been it is no more irrational than your beliefs. I don't need to share my reasons for believing it. The only thing to understand is that your faith is based on something you can't prove and is just as irrational as any other belief. You also challenged the idea of people choosing beliefs and I tried to explain this. It is tied in with what I just said above. We all choose to believe something. Some of us use some kind of perceived logical reasoning, others not so much. I tried to explain the logical process of how I might choose certain beliefs. Of course this is founded on existing beliefs, beliefs I don't feel I need to explain and are not the point of the conversation. Perhaps you feel that by challenging my foundation beliefs you are invalidating my argument. But you can't challenge my foundation beliefs because you don't know why I believe and I'm not going to allow this to derail to that as it is irrelevant. The difference you don't seem able to perceive is I know everyone has beliefs that can't be proven. Everyone acts on faith. You don't seem capable of accepting this. The foundation you choose is the one that makes the most logical sense for you based on the evidence you have been presented, as do I.