15%.

You might think this is the kind of thing that's impossible to bet on, but I think it's doable.

If Bob's P(simulation) is <10% and Alice's P(simulation) is >90%, and they both trust each other to be intellectually honest, they can make a bet on their own opinions changing.

For example, they can make two bets:

A) $1000 to $1000 on if Alice's P(sim) will be <80% on January 1st 2028

B) $1000 to $1000 on if Bob's P(sim) will be >20% on January 1st 2028

This effectively becomes a bounty Alice and Bob to convince each other, but if they are good truth-seekers they should be quite happy to pay that bounty to double their credence on an important possible world state from 10% to 20%.

@Joshua if ppl care I can write a blog post on why serious physicists don’t really take the simulation hypothesis seriously. Because at this point, any non-falsifiable version of the hypothesis has been pretty soundly debunked.

@bens Surely you mean the falsifiable versions have been debunked?

🤔

@bens a lot of folks in the top half of this distribution… care to explain your reasoning?

@bens like, I don’t even think Nick Bostrom’s credence on this is above 90%, say.

@bens It's interesting that there are 7 votes for 1-10 and none for 90-99 but 2 for 99+