A Logically and Mathematically Consistent Argument for Psi and The Afterlife?

There has been a lot of interest in The Simulation Hypothesis as a potential model of our universe, and the 'reality' that we experience. The idea has gained support from such disparate thinkers as David Chalmers and Neil Degrasse Tyson, and there appears to be some mathematics to back it up. From Wiki:

Ancestor simulation[edit]
In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed a trilemma that he called "the simulation argument". Despite the name, Bostrom's "simulation argument" does not directly argue that we live in a simulation; instead, Bostrom's trilemma argues that one of three unlikely-seeming propositions is almost certainly true:

1. "The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or
   
   
2. "The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero", or
   
   
3. "The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one"
   

The trilemma points out that a technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power; if even a tiny percentage of them were to run "ancestor simulations" (that is, "high-fidelity" simulations of ancestral life that would be indistinguishable from reality to the simulated ancestor), the total number of simulated ancestors, or "Sims", in the universe (or multiverse, if it exists) would greatly exceed the total number of actual ancestors.
Bostrom goes on to use a type of anthropic reasoning to claim that, if the third proposition is the one of those three that is true, and almost all people with our kind of experiences live in simulations, then we are almost certainly living in a simulation.
Bostrom claims his argument goes beyond the classical ancient "skeptical hypothesis", claiming that "...we have interesting empirical reasons to believe that a certain disjunctive claim about the world is true", the third of the three disjunctive propositions being that we are almost certainly living in a simulation. Thus, Bostrom, and writers in agreement with Bostrom such as David Chalmers, argue there might be empirical reasons for the "simulation hypothesis", and that therefore the simulation hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis but rather a "metaphysical hypothesis". Bostrom states he personally sees no strong argument for which of the three trilemma propositions is the true one: "If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3)... I note that people who hear about the simulation argument often react by saying, 'Yes, I accept the argument, and it is obvious that it is possibility #n that obtains.' But different people pick a different n. Some think it obvious that (1) is true, others that (2) is true, yet others that (3) is true."
As a corollary to the trilemma, Bostrom states that "Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation."[3][4][5][6]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#cite_note-M.40M-6][/url]


If we think this is a viable model for reality (Tyson thinks it's about 50/50) then it is impossible to be sure of all the rules that govern the simulation. The simulation could include "an afterlife", or some other form of post mortem consciousness, in its very programming. The rules could allow some (just statistically significant) precognition or remote viewing? Jeepers, even Max's super-psi ideas could be built in! 

Anyhow, I'm interested in whether there are any logical arguments against Psi type effects if we are assuming this model?

I am fairly sure that Tyson had no idea of the implications of VR when he 'endorsed' it. For all the hype that he gets as a media "expert", he can be a simpleton when he ventures just outside his field... His views on sex where particularly enlightening and hilarious for all the wrong reasons.

I still think that we should interview Tom Campbell, as he is the only one providing ideas how to actually test for VR.

I am fairly sure that Tyson had no idea of the implications of VR when he 'endorsed' it. For all the hype that he gets as a media "expert", he can be a simpleton when he ventures just outside his field... His views on sex where particularly enlightening and hilarious for all the wrong reasons.

I still think that we should interview Tom Campbell, as he is the only one providing ideas how to actually test for VR.

Marcus Arvan has posted some testable ideas regarding his Peer to Peer hypothesis, for example:

 

We should be able to reproduce/witness the 4-dimensional wave-like aspects of reality in real-time by feeding the superimposed outputs of a large number peer-to-peer Microsoft Hololens unites into a single Hololens.

I'm thinking of trying to interview him for the podcast as I've had luck getting replies from him in the past.

Marcus Arvan has posted some testable ideas regarding his Peer to Peer hypothesis, for example:

 


I'm thinking of trying to interview him for the podcast as I've had luck getting replies from him in the past.

Oh, that is cool. I was unaware that Arvan had proposed those, the last time that I had looked into P2P was when it was first discussed at Skeptiko and back then it seemed like a logical hypothesis. 

At least taking my own personal experience into account, it would help explaining why some synchronicities are fixated around someone of personal importance. I'm sure that people do get these kind of experiences with random elements, but that hasn't been my case.

Oh, that is cool. I was unaware that Arvan had proposed those, the last time that I had looked into P2P was when it was first discussed at Skeptiko and back then it seemed like a logical hypothesis. 

At least taking my own personal experience into account, it would help explaining why some synchronicities are fixated around someone of personal importance. I'm sure that people do get these kind of experiences with random elements, but that hasn't been my case.

Yeah it's still in the hypothesis realm though he has mentioned some potential findings of Orch-OR that might buttress it. What I like about Arvan's writing is he notes that the physical universe is functionally a simulation in which we, as conscious entities, are non-computational "players". So it's not that there's a Matrix, but rather a higher frame that "instantiates" a lower frame.

I can see it working with synchronicity as the world is an "average" drawn from the sum of observers, so what's on your mind would skew things to some degree. Emotional content might even weight the probabilities, if we're willing to get into more speculation...

Yeah it's still in the hypothesis realm though he has mentioned some potential findings of Orch-OR that might buttress it. What I like about Arvan's writing is he notes that the physical universe is functionally a simulation in which we, as conscious entities, are non-computational "players". So it's not that there's a Matrix, but rather a higher frame that "instantiates" a lower frame.

I can see it working with synchronicity as the world is an "average" drawn from the sum of observers, so what's on your mind would skew things to some degree. Emotional content might even weight the probabilities, if we're willing to get into more speculation...

The need for a non-computational element (meaning consciousness) is a commonality across several of these VR ideas. They use the "avatar" term some times, but it seems more complex than simply placing an avatar in a simulated sandbox, since there is an element of formalization or at least stabilization of the properties as well.

Yes, I have pondered that before and there is certainly more to it (it's no coincidence that it happens so many times around the same person and under remarkably different circumstances), but the phenomena is too volatile and random to deduce much more than the existence of underlying patterns... And the possibility of biasing the way that they manifest.