He does not propose jumping into the light as existentialists would us have it, he requires the building of steps, and slowly arise from the darkness.
Otherwise, the light would blind us.
I have no qualm with dispensing sun glasses. 
It’s based upon it. It seems like a lot of quantum physics is neo platonic in character.
The physics of relativity and the quantum physics seem to refer to two differen realities. At least, they are not really compatible.
So 11 pages and not even a hill of beans to show for it? Disappointing. 
Carleas, I agree with your point here, that a simulation would or could also render impossible any kind of upright logical possibility on our part to even be able to ask meaningful questions about simulation or not, or even more significantly that if we assume simulation is the case then it is also the case that the results of even our most certain and logical reasoning cannot be trusted. It would be possible to simulate beings that become entirely convinced of the “logic” of their own madness and illogic, for example.
But I think the issue can be approached simply on the basis of the following: if simulation is the case for us, then that means at some point there is a reality from which simulation comes; simulation must factor in some of this reality, both in simulation’s contents as well as in its formal structure. Think about dreams, which are basically simulations: they are strange and often irrational but they do make use of aspects of reality both in dream content and form.
The dream combines real aspects in unreal ways. I think a simulation would be forced to do the same thing. So a simulation could be construed as just an extension of the reality for which or by which the simulation is simulation, and even if we were in such a simulation it really wouldn’t matter because A) we couldn’t know of it, and B) the simulation always already exists at the behest of some other reality anyway. Basically, even if simulation is not the case, it is still the case that (A’) we cannot know for certain that simulation is not the case, and (B’) our own experiences of reality are always already mediated by some degree of detachment, distance and distortion when you consider what is subjectivity and how it operates. Waking consciousness is basically just dreaming within the confines of an encroaching environmental condition beyond the body (arrived at via sense-contacts, for example).
So my point is that no matter how we look at it we should assume (act as if) simulation is not the case, that we do have some real reality contact, because even if simulation is the case then we are still to a degree in contact to reality anyway, and even if simulation is not the case then our mode of subjectivity is always already somewhat “simulation-like” anyway. So the question of simulation or not is revealed to just be a stupid (non-philosophical) question.
JSS wrote
If there is only One, The Absolute, what math is needed? You have said that eternity exists, motion in the ocean that has always been and will always be and yet you place human limits on infinity/eternity? Why? A God has to fit your expectations and cannot defy your logic proper?
I don’t care anymore.
Capable wrote
Parents don’t communicate with their children? Why couldn’t we know of it?
Simulations are not identical. They are all different until the programming is “perfect.”
This seems like a horrible argument to me on the face of it. Bostrom’s, I mean. I don’t think you can construct an argument of the form “At least one of these statements must be true” when all three statements are statements of probability. Each statement is admitting that there are possibilities other than itself, and so heir must be possibilities other than their inclusive disjunction. “The human race is unlikely to go extinct before reaching a post human stage, the human race will run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history, and we are almost certainly not living in a computer simulation ourselves” seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to me. It turns on a bunch of assumptions outside the statements- that the real beings outside the simulation must be like the human race in the relevant ways, that a simulation of human evolution would necessarily seem like ‘the real thing’ to simulated beings within it, and so on.
I think we can conclude that we probably aren’t. I would reason it something like this. If we are in a simulation, then we are in a simulation of something. Of what? Of a world like this one in several key respects. So the statement that we are living in a simulation entails the existence of a world like this one in several key respects. So, we’ve got two bits of information:
1.) We perceive a world around us like this.
2.) A world like this actually exists.
The simplest explanation for those two facts is that the world like this that we percieve is the world that there is. Not only is this the simplest explanation, but it’s the simplest possible explanation- it requires no other data of any kind. Any introduction of a whole other world that isn’t this one that is complex enough to support a simulation of itself is a new entity that requires some sort of evidence. There may be some (there can’t be much since the whole point of the premise is that we can’t tell we’re in a simulation), but it will never conceivably make a stronger case than the case for this being the actual world.
Ucci,
How would this reality being part of the imagination in the mind of a God be any more or less real based on your 1 & 2? I’m not actually disputing 1 or 2, but I’d like you to explain how you arrived at such a comfortable conclusion that our reality reflects “their” reality?
“We perceive reality as this”
and "reality exists " are both fallacious to counter the premise, because who are we, and how do we know how we perceive reality, presuming we know who ‘we’ are. I wrote this before Maniac’s comment, so this kind of affirms it.
jerkey,
Decipher reality please. 
Yeah, like reality = the world was not a reasonable proposition.
It’s reasonable to the blind, deaf, and dumb, but someone must assist such folks to progress, overcome. Why not you?
As much as I would like to, I resist the temptation, due to limited(very) time. Otherwise I would do disservice. Why not you, now that you mention it?
What’s your excuse?
I’m too human, of course.
All, too.
Well, it doesn’t have to reflect their reality totally, it just has to reflect their reality ‘in the relevant way’. That is, the whole reason this argument even exists is because we live in a world in which simulating a fake world is the kind of thing we can imagine happening. In order for this world to be a simulation, though, there has to actually be a world like that.
Imagine if you go to my house, and you seem to see a dog in the yard. There’s two possibilities:
You saw my dog in the yard,
or
You thought you saw a dog but actually you didn’t.
Now suppose you ask me and I confirm that I actually do have a dog and he actually does roam the yard. My point is that the second premise becomes a lot less plausible once you know there really is a dog. That second premise needs a bunch of extra information; what you saw instead of a dog, why you thought it was a dog, and why my actual dog wasn’t visible. All those points will require evidence and arguments of their own that can be challenged. Once the existence of the dog is confirmed, the first premise requires none of that: “You saw a dog because there was a dog” is sufficient, and the all the extra logical doo-dads you have to add to the second premise to justify it are never going to be as solid of a case as that.