>

I think you're misunderstanding the argument.
The beings that created the simulation wouldn't be IN it.
If life is a simulation, I imagine we're either an experiment of some sort or we're a source of entertainment. Maybe a video game, where players can interact with the world, and we might just be in one of millions and our player is just someone who wants to watch things happen.
To be fair, though, we have absolutely no idea what nonhuman civilizations would want, so for all we know the simulation of life is a award winning TV show.
If it is some other human civilization that invented it, it's probably entertainment. Humans have found entertainment in violence, fear, tragedy, etc since day one. From gladiator arenas to depressing plays to roller coasters to horror movies to literal torture simulator video games.
/u/Dyeeguy (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Grand Theft Auto >

Well for the purpose of this argument, I am talking about simulating real beings that are actually conscious and feel pain >

…and you are talking about a more advanced civilization, but you supposed that they would not want to simulate suffering. If it is a simulation, it’s possible that the simulators don’t consider the beings in the simulation as conscious just as we do not consider the characters in Grand Theft Auto as conscious. >

I'm pretty sure they would realize we were conscious because they would need to program it. >

Are we conscious? >

I know I am >

Do you really though? >

Yes, In fact its pretty much the only thing you can really know for sure I think >

Its impossible to compare your consciousness to a theoretical advanced species. It could be as vast a difference as you and an ant. So its hard to say if you would be conscious in the same way they define their own conscious. >

I think a much more reasonable proposition  to make would be that they didn’t program it. They had an AI do it and simply don’t know how it works. >

While I'm not a follower of the simulation theory, you're arguing from our views of morals.
Different civilizations could have very different interpretations of our moral concepts. It would be possible, for instance, to keep the simulation as untouched as possible - even in the event of suffering - purely for scientific interest. After all, in the case of a simulation, none of the suffering is real, it's all just simulated.
And even if it was "real": scientific progress can, with a different moral outlook, easily justify suffering - if a couple billion suffer to save many trillion, would that not be a win? >

What could possibly be the scientific interest? >

Similar to studying ant colonies?
"Take a simplified model of reality and simulate the outcomes". It could be trying to show how a species of our makeup would act politically, what our development would look like, what the effect of changes in the environment would be... or, depending on the scale, what our impact could be on the (simulated) universe at large. Maybe they're studying conscious itself and how a simplified form could be created through chemical interactions.
Alternatively, it could of course be a completely nebulous interest that we cannot even comprehend. After all, they are significantly more complex than us. >

I think you raise some really good points. Hell, most people in the thread are focusing on "us" as if we are the true test subjects. What if that isn't the case?
It's just as likely that we're a side product of something else. The simulation could be about how a universe would function within a specific set of parameters, and humanity is just one of the many products that occurred. It's not that suffering was never specifically an aim, but rather, it was allowed in order for accuracy in the test. >

Have you ever played the Sims? Half the fun of the game is making the people suffer. Let someone go into the pool and remove the ladder. Put someone in a room and remove the door and watch them poop all over the ground. 
Same with games like Rollercoaster tycoon. You could try to make the most efficient theme park, or you could make Rollercoasters that kill all the riders and trap the inhabitants inside your park and remove the bathrooms so they poop all over the ground.
Heck sim city has different type of apocalyptic events you can do to your city voluntarily.
Why would a more advanced simulation not include more detailed ways to torment the characters?
(Pooping all over the ground is a common theme in these games) >

Would you torment sims characters if they were real? If so, why? >

They're not real, and neither are we if this is a simulation. >

real conscious beings that experience things >

Why do you assume that our creators would empathize with us? If they are sufficiently advanced to simulate us, they would look at us in much the same way that we might look at a single-called organism >

Single celled organisms are not concerned with suffering. You could argue some animals are concerned with decreasing suffering for themselves and offspring. You can argue humans are considerably more motivated than animals to decrease suffering. Following the chain, I think humans in 1000 years or some far advanced species is even MORE interested in reducing suffering than us >

Honestly, I’ve been through the thread and every argument you’ve made starts with “I think” and then has nothing to back it up. There are a lot of well thought-out and well-written responses that you make no real attempt to dispute other than to say “ya well I think future society would probably make that illegal” and in one case you even cited “space movies”  for fuck’s sake.
It’s pretty clear that you either don’t want your mind changed or are too young/intellectually undeveloped to interact with the arguments brought to the table. >

The arguments so far are mostly that they would not consider us conscious or would not mind inflicting pain on us. I explained why I think that is not the case >

And your reasoning is based 100% on assumptions, whereas the reasoning of the people arguing against you is based on NOT making assumptions.  Most of them aren’t actually arguing that a being that created our simulation wouldn’t consider us conscious, they’re arguing that the idea that they would consider us conscious is an assumption for which you have no evidence.
No one is trying to (and no one needs to) prove that a specific alternate argument to yours is true; the thing that has been repeatedly proved is that all of your arguments are built on baseless assumptions. And your response when that is pointed out makes it apparent that you can’t grasp that distinction.
You don’t seem to be particularly aggressive so I don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith; I think you’re probably just a confused teenager making a foray into intellectual waters that are above your head at the moment. >

Literally every argument in this thread is built on assumptions. By nature of the very topic at hand, the only conclusion which doesn't make assumptions is "this argument is unfalsifiable and therefore fallacious". >

There's a lot of versions of the simulation idea, but here are a few possible scenarios.
One is that they're not trying to simulate anything specific. Like, it could be nobody is out there saying "let's build a humanity simulator". They could be saying "let's build a physics simulator" and then they just look and see what happens. If you simulate the underlying building block of a universe, you have no idea what's going to come out. And once you have sentient life in your simulation, would they really feel right just turning it off to prevent suffering? If we are in a simulation like this, would you want it to be deactivated? I would prefer to continue existing personally!
Another possibility is they are trying to simulate brings of a particular style. But a civilization that does this might have a bit of a god complex. I think it's a genuinely interesting question of if a "heaven" could be truly engineered. If you simulated a billion people and fed them and gave them their every need and turned off illness and aging and suffering, would they actually be happy in that world? I don't know! But I think it's worth considering that suffering and death are in some ways necessary ingredients for a fulfilling existence, or at least the possibility that future simulation designers might think that.
Finally, you mention animal suffering, which I take seriously in what I personally believe to be a non stimulated real world. But if the world is simulated, chickens don't necessarily have any kind of feelings or sentience at all. If you are starting from the premise that the civilization can simulate sentient humans, it doesn't seem out of the picture that they could populate the world with non-sentient "chicken bots" that don't have any moral significance.
That said, I think the first possibility is the one I think you should think about the most. With arbitrary computing power, doing full physics simulations seems like a notable route towards the kind of simulation we could be in.