Doesn't get around that issue. And isn't really testable despite what the article says.
It doesn't get around the issue because in order for us to be a simulation we must have been simulated, so there must be a whole universe thing just here for no particular reasons. Its just that one that is there for no particular reason isn't "ours".
Its untestable because surely if you were designing a simulation you would emulate what you know about the world (as we are doing with the test) for seeing that we are able to simulate our world doesn't give us any evidence against one of the two propositions. IE we would expect, if we were a simulation, we would have similar properties to the real thing, so making a simulation and getting similar properties to what we see doesn't help us.
no subject
It doesn't get around the issue because in order for us to be a simulation we must have been simulated, so there must be a whole universe thing just here for no particular reasons. Its just that one that is there for no particular reason isn't "ours".
Its untestable because surely if you were designing a simulation you would emulate what you know about the world (as we are doing with the test) for seeing that we are able to simulate our world doesn't give us any evidence against one of the two propositions. IE we would expect, if we were a simulation, we would have similar properties to the real thing, so making a simulation and getting similar properties to what we see doesn't help us.