> I welcome a better explanation for the phenomena.
For which ones specifically? Generally any traditional scientific or layperson's explanation for a phenomenon is much better, namely the part that explains my observation of some entity by accepting that the observed entity exists. (Note that this doesn't imply that all observed entities exist. There are many cases where we have good explanations for why one would observe an entity that does not exist.)
> The overarching point, is that I think it does not matter if we are in simulation as long as it is self-consistent.
I suppose it might be okay to say that you believe that, as long as you're actually still generating new knowledge in order to solve problems. That's roughly the same as an astronomer saying "it doesn't matter whether Mars exists, as long as the entire Universe behaves consistently as if Mars exists." That astronomer can probably still help solve problems like figuring out how to land a rover on Mars, although I suspect that odd bit of epistemological gymnastics would introduce at least a small amount of difficulty compared to the astronomer whose epistemological stance is simply that Mars indeed exists.
Perhaps that's the difference in epistemology here: in your quest for knowledge, is your goal to solve problems, or to experience some feeling like "certainty" or "justification"?
I think that's what he's trying to say here - most of us don't care if the universe is a simulation, just if we can continue to solve problems in it (live).
I think you might struggle with the justification or certainty portion.
Otherwise, adverse feelings towards simulation tend to stem from elsewhere, namely the inability to ascertain what is real (the root of madness), an aversion to that greatest of promised simulations, heaven, or an innate desire to not be trapped in substandard eventualities - e.g. all man made simulations thus far suck hard donkey balls in a myriad of ways.
In light of solving the past three problems, sollipsism at least as I understand you to mean in this context, solves the problem of providing us a framework to tackle dealing with those issues, otherwise for the rest of us, we don't care.
I don't much care for the OPs article either, it's as much nonsense as calculating the size or speed of the universe using Genesis's 7 days of creation - that is to say it is hypothetical if not theoretical and ultimately conjectured.
For which ones specifically? Generally any traditional scientific or layperson's explanation for a phenomenon is much better, namely the part that explains my observation of some entity by accepting that the observed entity exists. (Note that this doesn't imply that all observed entities exist. There are many cases where we have good explanations for why one would observe an entity that does not exist.)
> The overarching point, is that I think it does not matter if we are in simulation as long as it is self-consistent.
I suppose it might be okay to say that you believe that, as long as you're actually still generating new knowledge in order to solve problems. That's roughly the same as an astronomer saying "it doesn't matter whether Mars exists, as long as the entire Universe behaves consistently as if Mars exists." That astronomer can probably still help solve problems like figuring out how to land a rover on Mars, although I suspect that odd bit of epistemological gymnastics would introduce at least a small amount of difficulty compared to the astronomer whose epistemological stance is simply that Mars indeed exists.
Perhaps that's the difference in epistemology here: in your quest for knowledge, is your goal to solve problems, or to experience some feeling like "certainty" or "justification"?