Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

[excreationist]

No, I am asking why they would make YOU conscious and no one else. What is so special about YOU?

I think I am the player (in a game like the Roy game or Alan Watts' dream thought experiment).

And why would you think this?

The first part is that I think there could be billions of simulations in the future but you would say that is impossible.

 

[pood]

I am asking why you think we live in a simulation and only you are conscious

.

 

[excreationist]

I am asking why you think we live in a simulation and only you are conscious.

So the first part is that I think there could be billions of simulations in the future. There is a smaller number of realities that aren't simulated. So therefore it would be more likely that I exist in a simulation. I think it is likely that the simulations would be like the Roy game, etc, scenario where there is a player and p zombie NPCs. If there is only one player then they can accelerate time more easily like in the Roy game.
Alan Watts talks about 75 years within 8 hours.

NDEs & the Afterlife - Life's Player

Near Death Experiences (NDEs), waking up, and hell

lifesplayer.com

For an ordinary person to have a simulated experience it would need to keep costs as low as possible which explains why only the player would be conscious.

 

[Swammerdami]

So there is a 50/50 chance we are in a simulation and you are the only conscious person in it?

That is roughly what I currently think.

The visuals and sounds of believable people are not real people.

That is what I'm saying.

I've wondered if excreationsist's model were correct myself, but never for more than a few seconds at a time, and I don't recall any such wonderings as recently as the 21st century.

Although coming from an opposite direction, excreationist's model reminds me of the  Boltzmann brain model which is usually presented only as a reductio ad absurdum.

I've also abandoned my belief in Quantum Immortality although I still want to understand how Cramer's transactional model accounts for the double-slit experiment.

I'm afraid my present view of ontology is that

IF you reject Tegmark's appealing  Mathematical universe hypothesis​

THEN all you're left with (paraphrasing adherents of the infinite-stack-of-turtles model) is​

It's mysteries all the way down.​

 

[bilby]

It's mysteries all the way down.

I am underconvinced that "We don't know. Yet." is an unreasonable or untenable position.

"Let's work the problem, people. Let's not make things worse by guessing" - Gene Krantz, NASA Flight Director.

 

[excreationist]

Although coming from an opposite direction, excreationist's model reminds me of the  Boltzmann brain model which is usually presented only as a reductio ad absurdum.

Maybe that would involve the odds of 1 in a googolplex with similar odds for it to give meaningful results for more than a second.

I've also abandoned my belief in Quantum Immortality although I still want to understand how Cramer's transactional model accounts for the double-slit experiment.

I don’t think it could involve true immortality if the universe has a limited lifespan or limited amount of useful energy. (Limited) Immortality through a simulation is better because it could involve you having wishes (like Alan Watts talks about) What if quantum immortality caused you to be stuck forever in a boring reality?

I'm afraid my present view of ontology is that

IF you reject Tegmark's appealing  Mathematical universe hypothesis​

THEN all you're left with (paraphrasing adherents of the infinite-stack-of-turtles model) is​

It's mysteries all the way down.​

I think base reality is only a few levels up because each simulator would be more complex and there would be a limited lifespan or limited resources. And if time is discrete there is a limit to how much can be computed and simulated even if the universe had an infinite size (the speed of computation could be limited to something like the speed of light)