They wouldn't question this if the VR Apple had smell or taste. They are assuming that because the technology doesn't exist today it can't be true. They would say the same thing it the early 1700 if you told them that we will one day fly across the sky and talk on little devices. The magic behind this is that the technology has yet to be invented so people cant comprehend how it works. Even if we are in a simulation. Anyone who codes or understand AI at its lowest form will understand that we ourselfs are just 1's and 0's.
It seems this argument can be summed up as follows:<p>Side 1 - eventually computers are going to be so powerful that it'll be trivial to create a realistic simulation - so we must be in one.<p>Side 2 - our "mind" cannot be represented by computers therefore we can't be in a simulation.<p>I'm trying to identify which logical fallacies these sides represent - does anyone know?