Arguments Of Simulation Theory

Simulation Theory

Introduction

Simulation Theory can explain some of the fundamental questions of life that have plagued humankind ever since we were able to use critical thinking. Simulation Theory has logic to back it up, yet like all “beginning-of-the-universe” theories, it has no concrete evidence to support it. Nick Bostrom, a philosophy professor from Oxford University, is one of the main proponents behind the simulation argument. In his journal entry from Philosophical Quarterly’s article “ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?”, he claims and provides supporting evidence for this following trilemma:

[A]t least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman”

One of his main critics was Brian Weatherson. Weatherson countered Bostrom’s claim that the number of simulations was infinite, as even if it were true, it would only approach infinity if we were simulated for eternity (which we will not be). Therefore, it would be a greater than infinitesimal chance that we were in fact base reality. Ironically, Simulation Theory advocates can use this exact argument since it is theoretically impossible for any computer to have infinite processing power. Weatherson and other critics go on to say that even though we may have similarities to simulated people, and artificial intelligence, it is by no means conclusive evidence. Continuing on what could be considered evidence, people have theorized that proving simulation theory is false is impossible since one could always retreat to something like “they don’t want us to believe we’re simulated”. To prove its existence though, people look for compromises in nature, such as basic building blocks that are not made of anything else, or rounding errors such as those in the peaks of cosmic waves. However, one could also argue that our intelligent overseers predict and solve problems before they happen—even if they do not—they can always rewind the

His trilemma (as described on page one) brings logic and abstract proof to the proposition that us living in a simulation is likely true. Brian Weatherson, another philosophy doctorate, argues Bostrom’s proposition in a lengthy response (“Are You a Sim?”). Starting off Weatherson says that even if we were simulated, and simulations could produce more simulations, if selected at random, any one’s reality has more than an infinitesimal chance of being base reality, as the number of simulations only approaches infinity as linear time encroaches eternity—which Weatherson argues we won’t be simulated for that