And the link you provided is the gobbledygook to claim to avoid.
Nothing in it is remotely a scientific argument, unlike the link I provided which is pure science.
Your link is simply a philosophic retort to Elon Musk’s non-base-one virtual reality proposal. And the article does not even address the real flaw with Musk’s view, namely that a simulated reality would necessarily be contained in a computational device within a higher reality and could not simulate all of the higher reality with precision within the same timeframe. That means that the further you go into a simulation within a simulation, the more time slows down. And that makes it increasingly unlikely to exist within a simulation within a simulation.
But more to the point, the whole article is a philosophical rant. There is no science. There is no testable theory of consciousness being an emergent property of matter. It is probable that such a theory could be put forward, but no one has to date.
This means that your screaming that these are FACTS is no different than any other case of SCIENTISM masquerading are intelligence. You sound like the global warming settled science crowd.
The article uses Musk’s idea as a straw man, and you’ve done the same.
It disproves nothing. It hasn’t even begun to formalize a hypothesis that is falsifiable. But the article I linked to does, because it is scientific. The only question is whether it will be falsified or supported by the evidence.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If you think that’s gobbledygook then you are, simply put, a bleeding moron. Goodbye.