According to simulation argument, one of the following statements must be true:
1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a post-human stage is very close to zero
2. The factions of post-human civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history or variations thereof is very close to zero
3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.
If we apply the principle of indifference to the above statements, the probability that statement 3 is true(You are a simulated being) is a little less than one third. The above argument is structured as a trilemma. Look what happens if we restructure the argument as a dilemma within a dilemma:
A. Post-human civilizations do not come into existence.(50% chance)
B. Post-human civilization do come into existence(50% chance)...If this occurs then (a) Post-human civilizations run simulations or (b) Post-human civilizations do not run simulations.
If we apply the principle of indifference to the restructured argument, there is only a 25% chance (a) is true. It seems to me the principle of indifference cannot be relied upon if it yields different probabilities depending on how the argument is framed. Without being able to rely on the principle of indifference, can one ever argue there is a substantial probability one is living in a simulation?