Are we all just part of a computer simulation? Scientists are trying to find that out.

[Brian37]

...You are attempting to shift the burden of proof and I don't give one fuck what the topic is.

Brian,

I don't think anyone is trying to unfairly shift the burden of proof. People are just bringing up the old "head in a jar" aka solipsistic philosophical problem. The fact is that you can't proove that this reality is real because to do so would require reference to something outside this reality which, I believe, is not possible because "this" is the only reality that "is".

BTW you shoulder the burden of proof when you say things like this:

...A COGNITION IS NOT REQUIRED for the universe to exist therefore IT CANNOT BE A SIMULATION, anymore than a hurricane is a "simulation"...

To break that down into a syllogism:

Proposition: A cognition is not required for a universe to exist
Conclusion: Therefore it cannot be a simulation
As infered by the similarities to: A hurricane

The problem I see is that the proposition falls on its ear because it is just an assumption. Therefore the conclusion is not sound. Your proposition seems to be predicated from your epistemology which starts with the assumption that reality is real. I share that epistemology but have come to the conclusion that it is a basic belief rather than a scientifically supportable fact.

Tell me what problem you avoid with a "simulation" that a standard invisible sky daddy has?

I think maybe you forgot about "infinite regress". If we are a simulation, then what caused that simulation, then the simulation that caused that simulation has to be even more complex than the one prior.

HOWEVER if something that is merely a process and not caused, like seasons changing it has no problem with needing something even more complex to cause it.

"Simulation" has the same stupid problem as god belief does. Things simply being allows something to be either finite or infinite without causing a bigger complexity YOU cant explain.

Complexity is an emergent property, not a starting point. A "simulation" would require that same gap jump assuming a complexity and would need something even more complex to cause that complexity. How far back are you willing to take this "simulation" before you realize it has the same baggage?

"Hawkins has said a god is not required" and I would guess he'd shit all over this si fi woo too.