Originally Posted by
Gawdzilla
"enormous" based on what? The need to have an outrageous idea with his name on it?
I'm citing the argument, as I understand it, not necessarily that I agree with it.
Also, I don't the idea is completely outrageous.
The first premise rests on the answer to the question, "Will humans ever be able to create conscious beings within a computer programme whose experiences will be indistinguishable from our own?"
If the answer to that is yes, then the next question is, "Will humans also use that technology to create simulated worlds populated by such beings qualitatively indistinguishable from our own?"
If the answer to this is yes, then the next question is, "Will there be more than one of these simulated worlds in existence?"
If the answer to this is yes, then the probability of being in one of the simulated worlds, as opposed to the real world, will be much higher depending upon how large a number of simulations exist. Presumably, these simulated worlds would also create their own simulated worlds also.
Now, it is possible that there are physical constraints to this and such technology could never exist denying the first premise. There may eventually be social constraints on this, whereby no advanced human or other society would ever allow it to be used denying the second premise.
But usually the "argument" against it is "That just sounds silly; I don't believe it."