The lottery analogy is compelling as an argument against the parents' specific assignment of probability but I would challenge you on a couple of things: > The

The lottery analogy is compelling as an argument against the parents' specific assignment of probability but I would challenge you on a couple of things: > The simulation has to be 'good enough' to make a thinking person (win the lottery); my mind has to be only smart enough to think of multiple universes but not perceive the obvious simulation artifacts Why is it necessarily true that the creator of a simulation would want to indefinitely prevent people in the simulation from recognizing that their universe is simulated? > Since we even ask ourselves "Are we a limited simulation artifact, or a real thinking person?" the answer is right there in the question. Let's go along with the notion that the simulation would want to avoid discovery of the simulation. How are you sure that you're really asking the question if you're so convinced of the answer? Is it crazy to imagine that in the hypothetical simulation a person's consciousness would be given degrees of freedom but have imposed constraints?