Thank you. I am just wondering though, When you say "each civ," what do you mean? What are these civilizations? Why assume they exist? What motivates the idea that there are other civilizations that run simulations sufficiently similar to our own world (as strange and contingent as its laws and constants are)?
Ok, thank you very much. But why then do so many people take the argument seriously? Is it surprising that the peer reviewed process didn't pick up this problem?
I think most people would probably regard the objection as a nitpick (e.g. "OK, maybe the Indifference Principle isn't actually sufficient to support a tight formal argument, and you need to add in some other assumption, but the informal version if the argument is just pretty clearly right"), feel the objection has been successfully answered (e.g. find the response in the Simulation Argument FAQ more compelling than I do), or just haven't completely noticed the potential issue.
I think it's still totally reasonable for the paper to have passed peer review. ... (read more)
"If we could run a vast number of simulations someday, that would be strong statistical evidence in favor of the third alternative. And we would know nothing of them, just as people living in our simulations wouldn't know anything about us."
If we actually do this and run those simulations then we would know that we aren't in any of them. What is the connection between the Indifference Principle and this strong statistical evidence? Thank you, I am appreciative.
Like, I am surprised the article made it through the peer-review process without someone noting that problem.
Ok, thank you very much. But why then do so many people take the argument seriously?
Okay, and thank you very much. But how do we know that if the universe timeline were run over and over again that it would be positive in value? Why not think that the future's value "in expectation" is neutral or very negative? Everyone seems to assume that the future will be good! Why?
Thanks for this. :)