4. Simluations necessarily consume more resources than they emulate, as a matter of computational theory. Therefore, some simulations can be built, but every simulation loses fidelity, and below a certain threshold there are no longer any bits being conveyed. We would only be in a simulation if there is a pool of resources greater than that of the observable Universe, and by definition of the latter, we cannot model the former other than to say "yeah, it's big". So (3) doesn't grant any predictive power at all.

Crucially, we have simulated our own ancestors, but the simulation did not appear to us to contain any sort of inner experiences from our ancestors. Is this because we aren't modelling faithfully enough, or because there are fundamental limits on the ability to model inner experiences?

> 4. Simluations necessarily consume more resources than they emulate, as a matter of computational theory.

That's part of 1: simulations cannot be built. A simulation that loses fidelity is not a proper simulation is it?

Also, you're assuming a simulation of physics, but simulating a world of minds is more feasible.

> Crucially, we have simulated our own ancestors, but the simulation did not appear to us to contain any sort of inner experiences from our ancestors.

We haven't, we have crude models compared to "post-humans" which would have a proper understanding of the algorithms at play in the human mind.

Sorry, I don't think that people have rich internal experiences; I think that every human is a p-zombie. Therefore when I say "simulation" I am talking exclusively about physics simulations. All life is chemistry; all chemistry is physics.

Nonetheless there are some elementary results that we can use. It takes more than one qubit to simulate a qubit, for example.

The simulations I am thinking of, for example, are those which tell us our genetic ancestry [0][1]. We can simulate the entirety of the depth of human sexual expression, in one single dimension, in this way. So do humans really have a rich internal experience relating to their sexuality? I don't know and I can't tell, but nonetheless the simulations are possible.

Would you care to share with the class how a "world of minds" can be simulated? How can the fidelity of a mind be measured? You appear to have solved a lot of the Hard Problem when nobody was looking!

Edit: Ah, you can't. Good try, thanks for playing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

If you're a materialist, then you should accept that all of our apparent rich internal experiences can be captured by algorithms. A "world of minds" simulation need only run these algorithms, not the physics that underlie them. This is many orders of magnitude simpler.

Furthermore, a simulation also needn't simulate the physics equipment we use to test our physics. An advanced simulation of the human brain's algorithms contains semantic content about what the individual believe these machines do, what properties they test for, so they need only simulate the interface and report results consistent with those properties and subject to the expected error distribution.

You seem to be forgetting that these are post-human civilizations, so they would have such detailed understanding of the human brain.