Difference between revisions of "Simulation Argument"
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Bostrom, Nick (2011) *[http://www.simulation-argument.com/patch.pdf A Patch for the Simulation Argument] Analysis, Vol. 71, No. 1 (2011): 54-61 | Bostrom, Nick (2011) *[http://www.simulation-argument.com/patch.pdf A Patch for the Simulation Argument] Analysis, Vol. 71, No. 1 (2011): 54-61 | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==External Links== | ||
+ | |||
+ | *[http://www.simulation-argument.com/ Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument Resource page] | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
*[http://wiki.lesswrong.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Simulation_Hypothesis&action=edit Simulation Hypothesis] | *[http://wiki.lesswrong.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Simulation_Hypothesis&action=edit Simulation Hypothesis] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |
Revision as of 06:11, 3 June 2012
The Simulation Argument is one of a number of ideas relating to the Simulation Hypothesis. The important distinction between this argument and earlier simulation models has been the addition of a proposed method of engineering Simulated Reality through the use of computers and the assumption that the conscious beings themselves are simulated, rather than merely "brains in a vat"
Nick Bostrom's paper Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? argues that one of following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.
References
Bostrom, Nick (2001,2003) *Are You Living in a Computer Simulation Philosophical Quarterly (2003) Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243‐255.
Bostrom, Nick (2011) *A Patch for the Simulation Argument Analysis, Vol. 71, No. 1 (2011): 54-61