Why is the easy part Pericles. It’s a simple human longing to be with your loved ones. Who would not want to resurrect a loved one who had died? Even if it was not real it could go a long way towards the healing process and the sense of loss you feel when someone has died.

Should we act differently – Well even if we could prove that we lived in a simulator this is still our “life” and our experience and the only thing that would need adjusting would be religion.

Tipler goes further. It is not just minds that will be simulated: ‘an emulation of all possible variants of our world – the so-called visible universe – would require at most 10 to the 10 to the 123 bits of computer capacity … this amount of computer capacity will be available in the far future.’
The Simulation Argument goes some way towards providing a solution to the traditional Problem of Evil. The problem is not ‘How could an omnipotent and benevolent God create a universe where bad things happen to some people’ – given free will, some people will, on occasion, choose to act in ways which result in other people suffering. The problem is rather this: ‘How could an omnipotent and benevolent God create a universe where there’s so much pointless suffering, suffering that results from natural causes, rather than the actions of free agents.’ But if your current life is a virtual life, then it could well be that the universe as a whole has (proportionally) a lot less pointless suffering than your virtual universe. Perhaps the unpleasantness to be found in the latter is due to the free choices made by some future (not very moral) human – the person who set up the parameters of the virtual world you inhabit – hence God is not directly responsible for the unpleasantness in question. The Simulation Argument thus provides an unexpected boost to the Free Will solution to the Problem of Evil.

Riveting stuff!
I am intrigued by the ‘all possible variants of the world’ prospect:

i) During an individuals passage through life they would in every moment, be faced with a myriad of alternatives (trivial or profound). If every thing not done/not chosen represents a path to a possible world, forgone , and if you factor-in all the non-human bits of the worlds & their foregone worlds, there must be a H–U–G–E number of possible worlds–surely , too many for a finite universe to contain(?)

ii) It also seems to me , if you do create all possible worlds you face a second problem–the world we’ve experienced up-till-now at least ,is not static. Do the resurrected inhabitants merely replicate their previous lives–or do they live some other scenario. And, if they live some other scenario, would they be the same individuals, since like river we flow & change on our experiences. Wouldn’t you need to preserve the smallest unit of perception ( like a snap shot), of every world.?

iii) In all possible worlds there would be some, where your loved ones would suffer horribly. Would it be ‘moral’ to create such worlds –or, if yours experience agonies & mine ecstasies , what do we do?