I think science/trade sims for acausal trade and other purposes are likely[1] and if they occur, they likely have reasonably high measure.
My very unconfident subjective expectation for the measure on these sorts of science/trade sims is >1/100,000th (of all measure). (With massive model uncertainty due to arguments like these.)
And, I think a good fraction of that science/trade sim measure (perhaps 1/2?) will match our rough location (the singularity seems reasonably close, our decisions seem influential on how that goes, e.g. who ends up gaining power and influence).
I think this argument sufficies to defeat the inferential step in you make in (6).
I don’t think this suffices for high confidence in being in a sim due to heavy model uncertainty, see here for more. But it certainly feels like a central guess to me.
(That said, I also think that civilizations are likely to run a reasonable number of ancestor sims of the singularity as this will actually be a salient point in history. (In the absence of regulation around this.) So, I also think this is a sufficient defeator. But the measure on these ancestor sims might be lower than 1⁄1,000,000,000,000 so I think the science sim should be a more central model of the situation. (Again, model uncertainty dominates here, so the probabilies are much closer than these ratios imply.))
Sometimes people argue that you won’t bother with actual sims because abstract reasoning will be better. It seems plausible to me that abstract reasoning will be where most of the acausal trade information is coming from, but due to diminishing returns on applying various approaches and some other considerations, I still expect a large number of sims.
I think science/trade sims for acausal trade and other purposes are likely[1] and if they occur, they likely have reasonably high measure.
My very unconfident subjective expectation for the measure on these sorts of science/trade sims is >1/100,000th (of all measure). (With massive model uncertainty due to arguments like these.)
And, I think a good fraction of that science/trade sim measure (perhaps 1/2?) will match our rough location (the singularity seems reasonably close, our decisions seem influential on how that goes, e.g. who ends up gaining power and influence).
I think this argument sufficies to defeat the inferential step in you make in (6).
I don’t think this suffices for high confidence in being in a sim due to heavy model uncertainty, see here for more. But it certainly feels like a central guess to me.
(That said, I also think that civilizations are likely to run a reasonable number of ancestor sims of the singularity as this will actually be a salient point in history. (In the absence of regulation around this.) So, I also think this is a sufficient defeator. But the measure on these ancestor sims might be lower than 1⁄1,000,000,000,000 so I think the science sim should be a more central model of the situation. (Again, model uncertainty dominates here, so the probabilies are much closer than these ratios imply.))
Sometimes people argue that you won’t bother with actual sims because abstract reasoning will be better. It seems plausible to me that abstract reasoning will be where most of the acausal trade information is coming from, but due to diminishing returns on applying various approaches and some other considerations, I still expect a large number of sims.