I find the simulation argument pretty convincing. The only footnote I would add is that maybe a civilization advanced enough to create such a simulation would deem it pointless. But it's also conceivable that we could reach that point technologically without gaining much insight in the nature of the universe.
An interesting thought is that there will be a species on a planet a billion years from now when the universe has expanded to the point where there is no cosmic background radiation and everything is so far apart that they will look up into a black night sky and all they know about the universe is within their solar system. What image of the universe will they have? The point is that these guys might be tempted to go down the simulation rabbit hole, so there's always that. Another good point which I claim my own is that the deeper you would go down the layers of simulations of simulations the more simple, the less complex it gets. The stupider, the uglier it gets. Looking out the window I can imagine that this world is pretty far down that hole.
I've heard Daniel Dannett present the fact that decisions are finalized in our brain before we realize it as evidence against free will, but I'm not sure I find that all too convincing. What I do believe is that we have much less autonomy than we would like to think we have and we would be better off acknowledging that, but on the other hand a purely deterministic world view could be dangerous, especially to purely deterministic beings, so let's better keep our greasy fingers off that pandora's box imho.
Reply With Quote