If it turns out that a reality can also be a dream then this reality may be a dream.

i feel like we can already say that

So let us sum up. I think this is what Stu is asking: If we observe that a virtual reality (dream, whatever) is an actual reality in and of itself, does that make it more likely that our reality is a virtual reality. In logical terms, he is asking, "If we find that a relationship 'If P, then Q' is true, does that mean that an observation of Q implies that P is more likely to have happened than had we not found that 'If P, then Q' is true (keep in mind we are not saying we demonstrated that 'If P, then Q' is false). Or,

P -> Q
Q
Therefore, the probability that P occurred increases when compared to not knowing whether or not P -> Q.

As far as I know, the answer is yes, it does make it more likely. However, I still contend that a simple computer simulation/dream/whatever would not be sufficient to show P -> Q. You would have to demonstrate that the Q (the reality) derived from P (the simulation) is actually the same type of reality that we experience. Otherwise, the results are inconclusive (as we cannot claim that our Q is the same as that derived from P).

Stu has made this argument in a couple different ways (remember the if we created life in a test tube thread). If I understand him, he is not just saying that it would add some measurable (if small) probability to the chance that we were designed. If I understand him, he is arguing that it makes it probable that we were designed.

Stu, please correct me if I've overstated your position.

Sure. I think perspective is all-important. A fish in a bowl might think there's a god because, if there wasn't, who changes the water?

Substitute "designed" with "created".

As JustinA pointed out there would need to be either an infinite number of realities or some root reality which is uncreated and contains all the created ones.

That's what so frustrating about these topics. It always boils down to either an infinite regress or some kind of starting point, both of which I find extremely counter-intuitive. :/

Are you sure you do not mean this would make it the favorite rather than probable? I can see your making an argument for the former. If you do mean probable, please explain how.

"Favorite" is a word I thought about using. I only refrain from using it because we have not observed a consciousness that is of a higher order than a human. I suspect there is a good chance we will in the next 50 years though.

One solid theory of infinity in that video...

what is infinitely large is infinitely small, universes within themselves forever are rational in my mind, although i prefer other theories on infinity.

Anyway we can all do what you state these beings do in OP, just on a smaller scale. It is just imagination and that's where our vision of god is produced.

I agree and if it is that way I imagine that there is a certain amount of self similiarity that permeates across the regression. This includes matter and energy organizing itself into ways to navigate thru those universes.

What? You have no problem calling it probable but you do have a problem calling it the favorite? Regardless, it would not make it probable for the same reason that our ability to create crystal structures in a lab does not make those same crystal structures found in nature a probable to have been created (and the reason is not our understanding of geology and chemistry).

Stu, is the question this?...Would the super intelligent being fit the description of God as described by the beings he created? I think the being has control and influence over this, so yes it's plausible imo.

^^^ trolling?