Since the argument does not mention probability, it doesn’t refute the counterargument that unlikely scenarios involving simulations or multiple universes don’t significantly undermine the ability to make claims about ontology.
If you take that as a premise and you consider it contradictory to my conclusion and you accept my premises, then the premises you accept imply a contradiction. That’s your problem, not mine.
Why should something that is possible but low probability have so much impact?
The argument is laid out in OP.
I don’t see any mention of probability.
The argument does not depend on probability.
If you disagree with the conclusion, please explain which premise is wrong, or explain how the conclusion can be false despite all premises holding.
Since the argument does not mention probability, it doesn’t refute the counterargument that unlikely scenarios involving simulations or multiple universes don’t significantly undermine the ability to make claims about ontology.
That’s not a counterargument, as it’s fully consistent with the conclusion.
If you take that as a premise and you consider it contradictory to my conclusion and you accept my premises, then the premises you accept imply a contradiction. That’s your problem, not mine.
Read back,there’s an even number of negatives.
Not following. Can you state your point plainly? Which part of my argument do you reject?