The theory that we are living in a simulation is primarily based on Bayesian statistics, so I find the article's claim that those who disagree most strongly are scientists - the very people most likely to understand and apply Bayesian statistics - incredible. The subheading seems like an attempt to dupe the audience into thinking science opposes the theory, but I don't understand the author's intention. I've read through this article twice but still do not understand the point.

The simulation argument is very, very, very silly. Here's why:

Suppose you have some universe with volume V, and some number of simulations inside it with volumes v1, v2, v3.

Now if you naively count the number of "universes", as proponents of the simulation idea appear to be doing, then yes, 1 + 1 + 1 > 1. By integer count there are more simulated universes. Congratulations, you can add.

This, is stupid.

Because no matter how many simulations are contained in the parent universe, by volume, v1 + v2 + v3 + ... + vn < V. The total amount of available space in the real universe is much, much greater. For example, let's say you have a supercomputer somewhere performing a detailed simulation of a hydrogen atom. Now let's say you are given a hydrogen atom and are asked to guess whether it's the simulated one or one of the real ones. Well, the number of simulated atoms is one. But the number of real ones is around 10^82. Even though there is one real universe and one simulated "universe", that does not imply that the hydrogen atom is equally likely to come from either one. Not even remotely close to it.

And that's true always and obviously.

(Note: by "volume" here I would mean specifically the amount of information contained or the degrees of freedom, as I do realize the physics can be different in the simulated universe).

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is untrue, it is impossible to refute it. I shall never forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it,– "I refute it thus."

Boswell 1763