Think MMORPGs - what are the chances of simulation being like that vs a simulation with just a few special beings, and the rest NPCs?. Even if you say it's 50/50, then given that MMORPG-style simulations have billions of observes and "observers are special" ones only have a few, then an overwhelming majority of simulates observers are actually not that special in their simulations.

There is no correct mathematical treatment, since this is a disagreement about models of reality. Your prior could be correct if reality is one way, though I think it's very unlikely.

I will point out though that for your reasoning to be correct, you must literally have Main Character Syndrome, believing that the vast majority of other apparently conscious humans in such worlds as ours are actually NPCs with no consciousness.

I'm not sure why you think that simulators will be sparse with conscious entities. If consciousness is possible at all for simulated beings, it seems likely that it's not some "special sauce" that they can apply separately to some entities and not to otherwise identical entities, but a property of the structure of the entities themselves. So in my view, an exceptionally tall human won't be given "special sauce" to make them An Observer, but all sufficiently non-brain-damaged simulated humans will be observers (or none of them).

It might be different if the medically and behaviourally similar (within simulation) "extremest" and "other" humans are not actually structurally similar (in the system underlying the simulation), but are actually very different types of entities that are just designed to appear almost identical from examination within the simulation. There may well be such types of simulations, but that seems like a highly complex additional hypothesis, not the default.

I never said "falsified" in that reply - I said fake - a simulation is by definition fake (Edit: Yes I did, and now I see how I've been 'Rabbit Seasoned' - a simulation hypothesis falsifies this reality. I never said this reality is false. My mistake!). That is the meaning of the word in general sense. If i make a indistinguishible replica of the Mona Lisa and pass it off as real, I have made a fake. If some kind of demiurge makes a simulation and passes it off as 'reality' - it is a fake.

I've never heard of "anthropics" but I am familiar with the Anthropic Principle it's antecedents in pre-socratic philosophers like Heraclitus who are the first known record of the concept. Have you heard of Kant and German Idealism?

Indeed, your video game scenario is not even really qualitatively different from my own situation.

How? To take your example of being the tallest person: If all human beings were exactly 6 feet tall, and you were 600 feet tall, then you're saying that would be proof that you are in fact in a simulation. That might suggest you are in fact extremely special and unique, if you want to believe in a solipistiic, Truman-show style world.

if I were born with 1000 HP, you could still argue "data from within the 'simulation'...is not proof of something 'without'."

Yes. Exactly. I could. Although it would intuitively be less persuasive. But there aren't any 600 feet tall people in a world of otherwise uniform height.

The difference between my scenario and the video game one is merely quantitative: Pr(1000 HP | I'm not in a video game) < Pr(I'm a superlative | I'm not in a simulation), though both probabilities are very low

I don't understand where you're pulling that quantitative difference. Can you elaborate more?