Fumfer Physics 46: Something Rather Than Nothing, or Simulation, Skepticism, and Existence
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/05/07
Photo by Remy Hellequin on Unsplash
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine whether skepticism about perception – demon deception, hallucination, Matrix-style simulation – can undermine existence itself. Jacobsen argues that true or false impressions still presuppose occurrence: appearance is not nothing. Rosner extends the discussion through simulation, coherence, probability, and the universe scale. Together, they frame “somethingness” as the minimal existential floor beneath realism, illusion, skepticism, and scientific inquiry. It also links logic, identity, and non-contradiction to the possibility of argument itself.
Somethingness Before Skepticism
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There was an argument around perception and defaulting to “somethingness” as the default interpretation. The point: “somethingness” is before the debate over realism, illusion, simulation, or correspondence. So it takes a little laying out, I think, but I think we can work through it in the discussion. All right, so there is the thought experiment involving a demon manipulating every sensory experience you have, right? The idea is to ask whether everything you perceive is an illusion.
There is sufficient calibration across the board in terms of your perceptual capacities. Now, whether those perceptions are hallucinations imposed by some omnipotent demon or genuine correspondences to reality, they still correspond to your experienced truth. Both of those thought experiments, which have been discussed for centuries, have actually been missing the point. That is my proposal. Whether impressions are true or false, impressions, deceptions, simulations, or hallucinations must still occur as something. Appearance is not nothing.
I think this is original, or at least builds on the earlier arguments. I think it also works as a kind of reductio. Whether perceptions are merely imposed images or reflections of an actual reality, there remains an underlying question. Yes, the possibility of imposed images is one. That is, whether they are experiential impositions of a false reality or actual correspondences to truth, to the real world in terms of some statistical approximation of it and the scales at which we exist.
In either case, there is still a thing that exists: either the imposition itself or the actual correspondence between impressions and the real world. So in either case, there is something rather than nothing. You see where I am going with this. Denial of existence has to appear. Denial is participative in existence.
Those examples trotted out in nearly every philosophy class are probably not taking into account some more obvious assumptions. They are, in fact, limiting cases of a more general thought experiment about existence and non-existence, whether the impressions involved are true or false. Before we can sort perceptions into true or false, there has to be enough identity and difference.
The implicit assumption is that there is something. It is easier to argue statistically for “something rather than nothing,” given the possible states of existence involved. So this distinction between false and true impressions of the world still presupposes the existence of something. Radical skepticism can challenge the interpretation of experience, but it cannot erase the occurrence of experience. That is the bedrock.
That is more of a philosophical or ‘metaphysical’ take on the issue. Obviously, the more scientific perspective is that the universe and physical reality existed long before us. But in terms of these philosophical thought experiments, I think this is a fairly clear addition to the discussion. Science proceeds from the practical assumption that the external world and other minds exist. Philosophy can go thinner. Something is happening, rather than nothing.
Simulation and Coherence
Rick Rosner: All right. So you are talking about two extreme possibilities. One is that the world is entirely real and our existence within it is real, and that our impressions of the world are as accurate as our evolved selves can make them. Given the limitations of being flesh-and-blood organisms, we are perceiving the world as realistically as we can.
On the other hand, everything could be a simulation, and we could be being fooled, Matrix-style. But I think you need to ask a question: how does it matter? Which is kind of what you are getting at. A simulation of the world would still have to contain a great deal of internal consistency and apparent reality, or else it would give away the game.
Right? If we saw magic happening all the time, and that magic was inconsistent with the rules of physics, as it would be in our world, we would know that something strange was happening. Either the rules of physics would be incomplete, or somebody would have access to our reality and be able to interfere with it. But we do not see magic all the time, unless you are a lunatic, I guess.
So the question is also: how much difference does it make whether we are in a simulation or not? Even a simulation has to function coherently, or else it reveals itself. And then there is the question of what the beings behind the simulation would want. Presumably, they would not design the simulation to privilege you, some random individual within it.
If it is a simulation, then they would have to simulate you and, to some extent, more than eight billion other people as well. Why would they single you out to experience violations of the rules of that simulation? They probably would not. So even if this is a simulation, you probably would not experience anything that violates the apparent rules of this world unless the simulation itself were being broken for everyone.
Which raises another question: why would they simulate the first place? Probably not to break it. Unless, in the higher-level reality, running and disrupting an intricate simulation is extremely cheap. Maybe they have so much processing power that a child in that world could buy a simulation kit for five dollars and simulate our entire universe, then casually alter it. But that seems unlikely.
And then there are other statistical arguments we have discussed. For example, what are the odds that we are not really experiencing anything at all, and that what appears to be our conscious experience is simply a momentary arrangement of atoms forming, by chance, something resembling a human brain with consciousness? The odds against that are astronomically high.
But then somebody in a philosophy class could argue that the statistical argument itself might also be fictional, that statistics and mathematics could merely be random manifestations giving you the impression that logic and probability are real, when they too are just temporary appearances. At that point, I do not know; I would imagine the teacher would throw up his hands and say, “I do not know,” or the professor’s equivalent.
Intelligibility and Experience
Jacobsen: I think that is pretty solid. The important thing is that even the skeptical move depends on intelligibility. It still uses distinctions, inference, and negation.
Rosner: And the big point is that, well, maybe “she”; maybe you have a lady professor.
Jacobsen: Sure. Well, I think the bigger point is that whether it is a Matrix-style imposed reality or an actual external reality perceived through impressions, something is still being experienced. You can call it a false reality as much as you want, but it is still being experienced as real, or at least experienced.
So there is the distinction between true and false, but there is still something there, right? A hallucination is, in some sense, real enough experientially, even if virtual or detached from external reality. The “something” remains the premise underlying everything involved. You cannot really escape that. We are, in a sense, stuck with the fact that there is experience occurring. That is not a grand proof of the world as perceived, or of the self, or of every metaphysical system. It is a trimmer and stronger claim: the occurrence itself is unavoidable. Every attempt to deny it confirms it.
Universe Scale and Statistical Questions
Rosner: Yes. And there are additional statistical questions that can be raised. For instance, I tend to think that the principles governing existence do not inherently favour smaller universes. If you imagine the set of all possible universes, or all possible moments in all possible universes, it would seem to allow universes of any finite size, potentially extending without obvious upper limits.
If working universes of many scales are possible, then it raises the question: are universes of certain sizes more probable than others? You could use that line of reasoning to argue for the simulation hypothesis. For example, if we exist in a universe with roughly 10^80 particles, and universes with 10^30 particles are somehow statistically more probable, then one might argue that it is more likely we are living in a smaller simulation embedded within a larger universe.
I do not personally buy that argument, but I think it becomes a valid philosophical question once we get a better handle on the principles underlying existence itself. What are the members of this set of possible moments?
You might think there would be vastly more universes with 10 to the 80th particles than universes with only 10 particles, simply because there are only so many quantum configurations available to a universe with 10 particles. In contrast, the number of possible configurations increases enormously as you add more particles.
So, does any statistical consideration have to be given to the size of a universe? Or is there some principle that says you accept the size of the universe you inhabit, and that its scale tells you nothing about whether it is “real” or simulated? That seems to me like the more reasonable point of view, but who the fuck knows.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Rick.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 