The Simulation Argument

Link to the paper: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

There has also recently been a podcast on this argument on "philosophy bites".

tagging: Epidemic2020, RationalRoundtable, Thunderbolt91, and dfpolis Cartesiantheist

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Simulation
• Argument
• Nick
• Bostrom
• debate
• TheDutchphilosopher
• Epidemic2020
• RationalRoundtable
• Thunderbolt91
• dfpolis
• Cartesiantheist
• God
• Christianity
• Philosphy

[Epydemic2020]

I just remembered about this post. I have a quick question tho. Is this assuming that my mind exists and is plugged into the simulation (like the matrix), or is it assuming my mind is a product of the simulation?

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@Epydemic2020 Your mind would be a product of the simulation

[RationalRoundtable]

I am still waiting for the rest of your tags to respond... what is keeping them?

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@RationalRoundtable Dfpolis is on vacation and others are busy too. it'll happen. and then i'll make mine

[RationalRoundtable]

I will give this some thought... I have been on vacation so I did not see this...

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@RationalRoundtable no problem Michael! Hope you are doing well

[89897654321duh]

so basically out of bostroms 3 hypothesis' it is very unlikely that we are in a simulation. Because either life will not exist long enough for that to happen, or if it does this intelligent life won't be interested in creating a simulation. so the chances of us living in a simulation are very,very,very small.

[Jonlb100]

A simple exercise to show everyone why the Simulation Argument is fallacious. Using fsim = fpNH/(fpNH + R), if fp=0.1, N=1000 and R/H=100 then fsim=0.5 and all three propositions of the disjunction are false, but if we impose R/H=1 as per Bostrom in his argument and use fsim = fpNH/(fpNH + H) then fsim=0.99. Clearly the assumption R/H~1 invalidates the argument and under this assumption fsim isn't necessarily the actual fraction of simulated individuals.