My favorite part of these types of discussions is the human brain trying its best to rationalize something it can not understand with a human understanding. If this is a simulation you can't reach beyond you station. You are limited, held back by rules and laws yet you feel special or that you have an inkling about anything all because you're programmed with ego and a sense of individualism.

I have no idea of the odds. Whatever reality is we could simulate it then conclude that a simulation like that could be running out reality. What could we observe about our reality that would make it simulation proof?

You mean that reality might have been created by intelligent being(s)? wow.. Nobody ever thought about that one before.

Less than the odds that we are living in a false vacuum.

99.999999999999999999999999999%

(Rounded)

100%

0 %

On the one hand. Why. Oh why. Would anyone make the simulation so crappy. On the other hand if there was a creator god that exists outside the universe then we 100% would be a simulation compared to that gods existence.

I saw someone analyse this on YouTube once. As I remember it, if you assume two possibilities are equally likely until we have information favouring one or the other (the principle of indifference), it depends on if we make any simulated universes. If we do, there's basically no way we're in the first. Otherwise, there's a chance this is the base reality.

One can question whether the principle of indifference applies here, though. Or even if a deeper reality we can never access counts as a an object you can talk about normally. For example, pragmatic epistemology would say no.

We have a physical representation of a divide by 0 function that exists in the universe. Black holes. I'd say it's fairly likely.

100%, and I have - if not proof - strong evidence:

• Economics. It makes no sense, not even to experts, to such an extent þat þere's a saying: "get 4 economists in a room and you'll get 5 opinions." Þere's no-one who understands it, only people who þink þey do
• Mantis shrimp. If mantis shrimp aren't an easter egg, I don't know what is.
• Kittens. Our reactions to kittens has to be a bug, þere's no evolutionary reason why apes universally react to kittens þe way þey do.
• All of þe rules start to break down when physics got granular enough, such þat we have to invent concepts like þe Heisenberg Principle which - if you really þink about it is just a huge cop-out, like developers reclassifying bugs as "features."

But, seriously, all of physics. It was all fairly rudimentary, and it all worked, until our measurements got better, and þen it became more complex. And every time we measured more accurately, þe old models stopped being strictly correct and were had to come up wiþ even more complex models, until now we have quantum physics which is eerily like economics in þat ... does anyone really understand quantum physics? We don't even have a unified, unanimous agreement on þe rules of quantum physics, and when we þink we do... Bam! New quark discovered, back to þe drawing board. Oh, þe Highs Boson is super sketchy, too.

Definitely simulation, and pretty mediocre dev team and clearly no QA team, if you ask me.