# Overview There are two core problems that I will anchor on throughout this piece: 1. The problem HM is trying to address: if you look at some physical substrate how can you know if a simulation is running inside of it? 2. The problem of why it is so hard to argue against HM—what makes his argument so slippery? Core visual objects you will work with: * Arguments have Structure * HM *constructs* his argument (it looks like a tree / directed graph) * There is *explicit structure* (what he says) and *implicit structure* (the implied consequences). These two structures are *interlocked*—they cannot be arbitrarily severed from one another. * Each node bears some load, some are more [Load-Bearing](Load-Bearing%20Structure.md) than others * Build the tree upwards—it makes it more clear to highlight which nodes have load. * Load can be shifted around the structure * [Content](Content.md) and Consequences * We are seeking theories with *high content*. This naturally leads to simple theories. * We want high content theories because they provide the most surface area for criticism, which is how we make progress. * HM's construction removes explanatory content (chops off consequences—see [Content](Content.md)) Rule: Anything that you include in your article should solve a problem. Does it help the reader understand what you're saying (remembering that the more you include the harder it is for them to follow)? Does it address a weak point of your argument? And so on. # Preface # Introduction # HM Core Argument * Do not use the visual yet # Prevailing Argument * Do not use the visual yet # My Counter Argument * Use the tree visual here to show the difference between the two arguments