Well I appreciate an attempt to supply a logical argument which tries to address some of the points I made. I will say this. I do not believe matter is fundamental and that is not the basis of my argument. I am attacking the credibility of Bostrom’s line of reasoning which amounts to the claim that unlimited technological progress ensures that a future civilization will simulate its ancestors a massive number of times. It’s not good enough to say “you can’t even estimate the probability” of this or that development if Bostrom’s argument is based on probability (it’s in the title!). And the arguments based on QM are self defeating (Bostrom at least does not make them). “Irrefutable” may mean “unable to be disproven” or “definitely true”. I think simulation clearly can’t be disproven, just like God. That doesn’t say much. It is also irrefutable in this sense that we are the dream of a purple troll in Xanadu. By invoking infinity I can even make that seem plausible and inevitable - there must be such a troll in infinity. Bostrom’s apparently blank cheque for progress allows him similar manouevres. He apparently gets off scot-free from any challenge on the technical problems with this because “progress”. And plausible is in the mind of the beholder. I don’t find Bostrom plausible at all, obviously. I hope you don’t think simulation irrefutable in the stronger sense. I look forward to your exposition and may comment more there.