...and the result of that thought experiment tends to result in the opposite view of those who consider it, viz. that real life is preferable to simulation.
Its one thing to ask the question as a thought experiment, but it is another to be presented with the choice in real life. Think of all the people that watch the documentaries about lottery winners that lose all their money and think "that wouldn't be me, I'd be smarter with it."
Yes, this is very true. Whether people
would in fact opt-in to entering the machine is another matter entirely. There are a few things to consider, here.
First, the simulated experience might be way better (in terms of pleasure, intellectual stimulation, etc.) than one's reality. If given the choice between actually traveling to Rome and merely having the experience of traveling to Rome, then, all things being equal, I think most people would actually choose to travel to Rome. Experiencing a Rome tour without actually touring is like receiving a trophy that one hasn't earned. It's inauthentic and thus valued far less than the authentic. On the other hand, if given the choice between the mere experience of traveling the world and the reality of living in poverty, in an impoverished environment, with very little opportunity for increasing one's standard of living, most would choose to enter the machine. Even if inauthentic, the experience of world travel will be more enriching and offer a higher standard of experience. In fact, I imagine this is why most people would end up opting in to the experience machine. It offers them an increase in pleasure compared to their ordinary hum-drum life (hedonic adaptation, anyone?) without all the hassle it'd take to get that pleasure in real life.
Second, there are some things that one may want to experience but not actually do, possibly due to fear of potential high stake loss. For instance, my fear of heights is strong enough that I could never jump out of a plane of my own volition, but I wouldn't mind opting in to the experience machine to see what it's like. I'm sure many others would do the same.
Third, if the experience machine is asynchronous, such that the simulation provides a lifetime of experience during just a brief interval in real time, I'd bet many would opt-in to "test drive" different lifestyles, career choices, etc. to see whether they lead to an outcome they'd prefer.
I suppose the economist could argue that opting in to enter a low-energy experience machine would be the rational choice for those who are in a state where energy supply is too low even to engage in the activities that culminate in the experiences that the experience machine lets them enjoy. But this still isn't economic development. It may be the rational choice within the imagined scenario, but that doesn't change the fact that it'd be a reduction in standard of living compared to the past, since most people would still prefer to do the activities related to the experience rather than merely experience them.
