Countering an argument by labelling and linking it’s statements seems a very disjointed way to try to enforce your logic. For example you labelled my core argument as a False Dilemma, implying that it creates an oversimplified choice by eliminating alternatives. Care to elaborate exactly how it is doing that, and which alternatives it is excluding?

It would seem to me that you’re someone who takes your reality at the highest value, as in that you not only believe that nothing can supersede the laws defined by this reality, but you also take concepts that have enough social or scientific validation to be true despite not fully comprehending the concepts yourself. I do not mean that as an attack on your intelligence by any means btw, not a single soul possesses the ability to fully comprehend everything humans have scientifically discovered, so at some point we are all relying on the word of someone else.

The fallacy in this is that you are rejecting the notion this could be a simulation before you ever step foot into exploring the logic I presented. Because if this were a simulation, you could acknowledge that everything could be an illusion, the past could be generated, other people could be NPCs, etc, and this is all designed as an experience. At that point you might consider then that an article which states this cannot be a simulation might have been created for the purpose of keeping you immersed, not unlike the Truman Show. That if this were a simulation then it is likely a designed experience, and in the designing of that experience it would likely be known where the limits of your comprehension, and which knowledge you would seek for yourself would be. So then, for example, the experience could serve you an article which states that scientists have discovered that algorithmically this cannot be a simulation, and rather than explore and fully comprehend that notion for yourself, you would instead take it at face value.

This is why it’s so important to not only make distinctions in the levels of logic, with the base being the irrefutable “I think therefore I am”, as well as the presented logic not being so advanced that you’d need to read a textbook to understand it. Because reading a textbook is again taking things at face value. And if you read textbooks that explained the sci-fi world of a video game, as interesting as they may be, they offer nothing but further immersion.