I couldn't agree more, but with one exception. I tend to heavily indulge the simulation hypothesis, but the nuance here being that it's not necessarily just an arbitrarily simulated complete reality.
Our lives do an unbelievably good job of teaching us endless unteachable lessons. What if life as we know it is, for instance, little more than a day's lesson in another reality? Or a day of a gaming? Perhaps a test of character for some sort of role? There's no reason to assume time, and life expectancy as we know it, are universal truths. Even within our own reality the rate of the passage of time is variable.
The only problem I have with the simulation hypothesis is it being turtles all the way down. Imagine you pass from this world only to 'awake' in another. How does the exact same simulation argument not just apply yet again? It seems fundamentally unfalsifiable and circular, but I suppose that is standard for any explanation of life.
I believe this is actually one of the strongest arguments for the simulation hypothesis. If simulated worlds are possible then there are almost certainly more simulated worlds than non-simulated worlds (of which there can only be one) so therefore the odds of existing in a simulated variety are never less than half and likely much higher or else simulated worlds cannot exist with enough fidelity to remain undetected.
I think the last part is the problem with this argument. We can already simulate worlds (Minecraft), they're just very different from our own. It has to be possible to actually simulate our universe. Not just theoretically, but also practically: Someone needs to have enough energy, time, engineering ability, other resources, and enough motivation¹ to run the simulation.
Also, if you permit me to get spiritual for a moment, I believe that it could be theoretically possible to simulate any fully materialist universe, but I'm not convinced consciousness can arise from doing maths. Since I am conscious, this universe must not be simulated, no matter how many simulated worlds actually exist.
[1] I'm assuming that most creatures intelligent enough to understand the concept of simulating a universe will want to try it. But if it takes an entire civilization to do so and that civilization has to choose between, say, spending the energy on simulation running or on food production, it's pretty clear what will happen.
I agree with the uniqueness of consciousness. Obviously no entity poofs into existence imagining itself adding two numbers when I execute that operation, and I don't think this changes whether one carries out 1, 10, or 2^1000 operations.
However that doesn't preclude 'my' version of the simulation hypothesis. Imagine you were in a full body VR sim from the moment of birth, that artificial reality would likely simply be reality to you, yet your consciousness would remain. So all that's fundamentally required is some tech to temporarily block all past memories before entering the sim.
Yes, I suppose that would actually be a way around the consciousness problem. I really like the memory blocker idea—if we assume that it's not 100% accurate and one or two memories can still bleed through, that would be a third explanation for (claimed) past-life memories, beyond reincarnation or them being made up. They're just memories of a previous simulation or real life, not filtered by the blocker.
Sounds like an interesting concept for a story, if nothing else.
Our lives do an unbelievably good job of teaching us endless unteachable lessons. What if life as we know it is, for instance, little more than a day's lesson in another reality? Or a day of a gaming? Perhaps a test of character for some sort of role? There's no reason to assume time, and life expectancy as we know it, are universal truths. Even within our own reality the rate of the passage of time is variable.
The only problem I have with the simulation hypothesis is it being turtles all the way down. Imagine you pass from this world only to 'awake' in another. How does the exact same simulation argument not just apply yet again? It seems fundamentally unfalsifiable and circular, but I suppose that is standard for any explanation of life.