If we choose longtermism, then we are almost definitely in a simulation, because that means other people like us would have also chosen longtermism, and then would create countless simulations of beings in special situations like ourselves. This seems exceedingly more likely than that we just happened to be at the crux of the entire universe by sheer dumb luck.
Robin Hanson wrote about the ethical and strategic implications of living in a simulation in his article “How to Live in a Simulation”. According to Hanson, living in a simulation may imply that you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look more likely to become rich, expect to and try more to participate in pivotal events, be more entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happier and more interested in you.
If some form of utilitarianism turns out to be the objectively correct system of morality, and post-singularity civilizations converge toward utilitarianism and paradise engineering is tractable, this may be evidence against the simulation hypothesis. Magnus Vinding argues that simulated realities would likely be utopias, and since our reality is not a utopia, the simulation hypothesis is almost certainly false. Thus, if we do live in a simulation, this may imply that either post-singularity civilizations tend to not be utilitarians or that paradise engineering is extremely difficult.
Assuming we do live in a simulation, Alexey Turchin created thismap of the different types of simulations we may be living in. Scientific experiments, AI confinement, and education of high-level beings are possible reasons why the simulation may exist in the first place.
Andrés Gómez Emilsson discusses this sort of thing in this video. The fact that our position in history may be uniquely positioned to influence the far future may be strong evidence that we live in a simulation.
Robin Hanson wrote about the ethical and strategic implications of living in a simulation in his article “How to Live in a Simulation”. According to Hanson, living in a simulation may imply that you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look more likely to become rich, expect to and try more to participate in pivotal events, be more entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happier and more interested in you.
If some form of utilitarianism turns out to be the objectively correct system of morality, and post-singularity civilizations converge toward utilitarianism and paradise engineering is tractable, this may be evidence against the simulation hypothesis. Magnus Vinding argues that simulated realities would likely be utopias, and since our reality is not a utopia, the simulation hypothesis is almost certainly false. Thus, if we do live in a simulation, this may imply that either post-singularity civilizations tend to not be utilitarians or that paradise engineering is extremely difficult.
Assuming we do live in a simulation, Alexey Turchin created this map of the different types of simulations we may be living in. Scientific experiments, AI confinement, and education of high-level beings are possible reasons why the simulation may exist in the first place.