It sounds a bit chicken-and-egg to me. My subjective probability estimate of simulators’ motivations comes great part from the frequency and nature of observed bizarre events. Based on what I know about my universe the vast majority of my simulators don’t interfere with my physical laws.
I hear things like this a lot, but I’m not sure if I’ve heard a clear reason to think that the people that the simulators (of a long-running, naturalistic simulation) are interested in should be more likely to be conscious, or otherwise gain any sort of epistemological or metaphysical significance.
One hypothesis is that we are being mass simulated for acausal game theoretic reasons, and that only the “interesting” people are simulated in enough detail to be conscious.
It sounds a bit chicken-and-egg to me. My subjective probability estimate of simulators’ motivations comes great part from the frequency and nature of observed bizarre events. Based on what I know about my universe the vast majority of my simulators don’t interfere with my physical laws.
Now update on the fact that you’re one of perhaps 1000 people who think seriously about the singularity out of 6,000,000,000…
I hear things like this a lot, but I’m not sure if I’ve heard a clear reason to think that the people that the simulators (of a long-running, naturalistic simulation) are interested in should be more likely to be conscious, or otherwise gain any sort of epistemological or metaphysical significance.
One hypothesis is that we are being mass simulated for acausal game theoretic reasons, and that only the “interesting” people are simulated in enough detail to be conscious.
“interesting” is very much the wrong word though. More like informative regarding the optimization target that one cooperates by pursuing.