[maegul]

> If it is possible that to make a simulation which matches our experience, then it is likely possible to make an unbounded number of such simulations.

Why? This seems to me to be the weakness in the argument.

Of all the universes in which it is possible for a technological species to evolve and create a simulation of our universe, what’s the probably of said simulations having a given incentive or conducive cost/benefit ratio for said species?

Theoretically this could range from “can only do one once before our budget runs out and we move on” to your “unbounded” claim. But with what distribution?

This question seems fundamental and so reduces the initial question to a more complex one than what you pose: is it possible and if so how plausible?

Unless I’m missing something, leaping over this factor, as seems to be the mainstream approach, indicates to me that some techno-utopic-transcendentalism bias is at play.

[addaon]

> Unless I’m missing something, leaping over this factor, as seems to be the mainstream approach, indicates to me that some techno-utopic-transcendentalism bias is at play.

Yeah, at some level. The universe that we observe doesn't seem to be set up, in the current epoch, to have very tight resource limits other than time. Energy is plentiful. The main cost of anything is opportunity cost. Sure, simulating a universe might cost /our/ civilization so much compute capacity that we have to choose between than and advertising Christmas sales, and that's clearly no choice at all -- but it only takes a small percentage of similar planets to hold civilizations that are just slightly more advanced to make this a reasonable freshman project, and at that point, plentitude creeps in again. Basically -- and I agree this can totally be interpreted as utopianism -- it's hard to imagine a line between "it is possible to build a computer capable of computing <X>" and "it is expensive, on the scale of reasonably-advanced civilizations, to build a computer capable of computing <X>."

[maegul]

> it's hard to imagine a line between "it is possible to build a computer capable of computing <X>" and "it is expensive, on the scale of reasonably-advanced civilizations, to build a computer capable of computing <X>."

Well it’s not so much about whether there is a line but what the probability distributions are and whether it continues to make sense to think that of all sentient beings the majority are likely simulated.

And while I personally get the argument you and the parent post make, I think it’s worthwhile highlighting that it’s likely not a simple matter of whether it’s possible and that the biases/utopianism that facilitate making that leap are also factors and worth making explicit.

Personally, I find it hard to conclude that a sufficiently advanced civilisation would necessarily be concerned with running so many simulations when there are probably a number of things they could spend time on that we can think of and many more we can’t because we’re not that advanced.