by Consider:
1. Subjectively, we have evidence that we are in a position to crucially affect the future of mankind, perhaps the future of the whole universe.
2. How many “basement-level” humans are likely in this position? Perhaps none were, but let’s count liberally,say 100 expected people were in a position to affect the future of humanity due to the cold war. This would give a ratio of around 1 in a billion.
(if we count subjectively, the number might be much greater though , including many madmen and perhaps some people with religious beliefs)
3. What proportion of fictional protagonists have a chance to “save humanity” or something similar? In particular the most relevant fictional characters are those players in various games play. How many of these…?
4. Look at typical human entertainment venues – for a long time they have received a large share of the resources in society. Why should this change with new super-entertaining simulation-tech?
But fear not, the simulation hypothesis (especially in this version) is not bad news. Rather, it is probably the best news ever. Some plausible probabilistic implications are:
1. You will have a great life. If we are in a voluntary game, created by posthumans with posthuman entertainment technology – we should expect a greatly entertaining life
2. You will not die.
3. There is no suffering. Neither has there been (in this universe). It would be very cruel to create/simulate tons of suffering creatures just for the entertainment of a few individuals, if this can easily be avoided. Thus it’s unlikely that there is real suffering. Neither has there ever been any suffering (except in the basement universe perhaps).
4. Astronomical goods. As a bonus, we should expect a civilization capable of such simulations to be capable of space-colonization.
Interestingly, though, if we are non-risk-averse maximizing utilitarians we should still act in the same way in this scenario even if the chance of being in such a simulation is close 1, by the astronomical waste argument.
1. Subjectively, we have evidence that we are in a position to crucially affect the future of mankind, perhaps the future of the whole universe.
2. How many “basement-level” humans are likely in this position? Perhaps none were, but let’s count liberally,say 100 expected people were in a position to affect the future of humanity due to the cold war. This would give a ratio of around 1 in a billion.
(if we count subjectively, the number might be much greater though , including many madmen and perhaps some people with religious beliefs)
3. What proportion of fictional protagonists have a chance to “save humanity” or something similar? In particular the most relevant fictional characters are those players in various games play. How many of these…?
4. Look at typical human entertainment venues – for a long time they have received a large share of the resources in society. Why should this change with new super-entertaining simulation-tech?
But fear not, the simulation hypothesis (especially in this version) is not bad news. Rather, it is probably the best news ever. Some plausible probabilistic implications are:
1. You will have a great life. If we are in a voluntary game, created by posthumans with posthuman entertainment technology – we should expect a greatly entertaining life
2. You will not die.
3. There is no suffering. Neither has there been (in this universe). It would be very cruel to create/simulate tons of suffering creatures just for the entertainment of a few individuals, if this can easily be avoided. Thus it’s unlikely that there is real suffering. Neither has there ever been any suffering (except in the basement universe perhaps).
4. Astronomical goods. As a bonus, we should expect a civilization capable of such simulations to be capable of space-colonization.
Interestingly, though, if we are non-risk-averse maximizing utilitarians we should still act in the same way in this scenario even if the chance of being in such a simulation is close 1, by the astronomical waste argument.