Marvin

That makes sense. So it's more that objectivism is a clear non self contradicting method of explaining the world, and as long as the skeptic can't give evidence that he's wrong he shouldn't care cause since the burden of proof is on the skeptic. So it's not because it can be doubted that we're in a simulation the objectivist actually cares. I thought objectivism claimed to prove with absolute certainty that we can know certain laws and can't be a brain in a vat or something. This makes more sense. But what if you're an objectivist who encounters the simulation argument and decides there's more evidence that the world is a simulation than real, is he then still an objectivist or what'd happen exactly?

I'm really new to philosophy as you can probably tell and just delving into different things so please correct me when I'm wrong objectivism just doesn't make any sense to me. I didn't say you can't know anything I agree that you can know you're conscious and I 99% certainly agree with the primacy of existence but I don't see how that disproves me living in a simulation since if we were to simulate someone they couldn't tell the difference either so I don't see how anything is self refuting here.

I'm not sure what you see as evidence but I see it impossible to not recognize the fact that there's a chance that you're in a simulation and you've only come into existence last thursday. I thought objectivism sold itsself as offering a reasoning why it *couldn't* be true we live in a simulation as I saw one say skeptics are wrong. It might be a good system for how to deal with uncertainty and probabilities but to declare it as a fact you know you were alive 3 years ago is wrong imo.

I see how arbitrary claims aren't important but I'm saying this isn't an arbitrary claim and that objectivism has no different or better response to skepticism than every other philosophy in my eyes. If the eventual response is 'it won't or shouldn't change how we live our daily lives' that's the exact same thing Hume said.

I'm not trying to take a dig here it's just that I'm very confused about how objectivists claim to have an answer to skepticism. Since the response to the brain in a vat scenario is comparing it to 'being on the same probability as Russel's flying teapot' let's take the simulation theory. Most scientists agree that between 50 and 500 years we will be able to fully scan and upload brains in computers. If we don't destroy ourselves until then and you accept that there will be at least 1% chance 1 person of the 8 billion people on earth will decide to make one, the probability is not comparable to the flying teapot. I believe it's more like a 40% chance. How could you claim you are *certain* that you didn't spawn into this world 3 minutes ago and what you think is your past isn't just a piece of code created by some teenager in their room. Because the answer (seems to everyone except for objectivists) is that you can't. The probability is extremely low but at least higher than a flying teapot flying around the sun.