I think we can take it that we’re not in a multiplayer game, since we don’t think that we’re players. It’s possible that players would agree to have their memories wiped before starting the game, but this seems unlikely.
Anyway, the multiplayer game hypothesis is incompatible with the simulation argument. You need only one large multiplayer game for one universe of players, assuming each player can play only one game at a time.
First,in a multiplayer game you still can have more NPCs than players. Players do not show that they are special because it would break the rules / spoil the fun / lead to their player character locked up as insane.
Second, maybe they too find it tedious to control every single muscle of the character body. So they gave some weak—by their standards—AI, and control the character via nudging desires and choices. Have you ever felt that you doubt which of a few decision to chose and then suddenly decide? The player has finally clicked a menu item of a few provided by your intelligence.
Third, for huge number of NPCs relative to number of players you could set up a strategy. Not like a Civilization, but like a Dwarf Fortress or SimCity—some ideas suddenly become commonplace and autonomous agents try to implement them.
The issue is not the ratio of NPCs to players. The issue is the number of players per simulation.
If you assume a multiplayer game, you don’t need as many simulations, and we no longer assign a high probability to us being in a simulation.
A multiplayer game may have a reasonable world limit size, and inter-world movement isn’t implemented yet (whether it would be inside one universe, as in Eve Online, or between disjunct universes). So the simultaneous simulation count goes somewhat down, but there are still many and new ones are launched as population grows…
I think we can take it that we’re not in a multiplayer game, since we don’t think that we’re players. It’s possible that players would agree to have their memories wiped before starting the game, but this seems unlikely.
Anyway, the multiplayer game hypothesis is incompatible with the simulation argument. You need only one large multiplayer game for one universe of players, assuming each player can play only one game at a time.
First,in a multiplayer game you still can have more NPCs than players. Players do not show that they are special because it would break the rules / spoil the fun / lead to their player character locked up as insane.
Second, maybe they too find it tedious to control every single muscle of the character body. So they gave some weak—by their standards—AI, and control the character via nudging desires and choices. Have you ever felt that you doubt which of a few decision to chose and then suddenly decide? The player has finally clicked a menu item of a few provided by your intelligence.
Third, for huge number of NPCs relative to number of players you could set up a strategy. Not like a Civilization, but like a Dwarf Fortress or SimCity—some ideas suddenly become commonplace and autonomous agents try to implement them.
The issue is not the ratio of NPCs to players. The issue is the number of players per simulation. If you assume a multiplayer game, you don’t need as many simulations, and we no longer assign a high probability to us being in a simulation.
A multiplayer game may have a reasonable world limit size, and inter-world movement isn’t implemented yet (whether it would be inside one universe, as in Eve Online, or between disjunct universes). So the simultaneous simulation count goes somewhat down, but there are still many and new ones are launched as population grows…
In the multiplayer game the players might be different deities not different people.