Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Argument

Bostrom is also considered a futurist and has weighed in on other significant technological issues including AI and super intelligence.

The Simulation Argument was proposed in 2003 and dictates that if humanity is capable of producing conscious simulations, it could in theory create many simulated beings which means a randomly chosen conscious entity is more than likely in a simulation.

The argument presents a trilemma and proposes the following possibilities, one of which must be true:

The first possibility suggests that if we are in a base reality, we may not make it as far as producing complicated simulations, despite the technological trajectory suggesting otherwise.

The second option suggests that future humans may have decided not to run detailed simulations for ethical reasons. This one, in our view, seems unlikely given humanity’s commitment to advancement whatever the cost.

The third option, and seemingly very likely, suggests that we are indeed living life in a computer simulated reality.

You can see the probability calculations on his website by clicking here which goes into more detail about the possible number of simulated minds, if indeed we are in a simulation. Essentially, Bostrom thinks there would be far more simulated minds (simulated consciousness) than ‘real’ minds in a base reality, in whatever form that might assume. Bostrom, despite suggesting the chances that we live in a simulation are 1/3, rates the likelihood at more like 20%. I believe, as will be argued in later posts, these chances are much higher.

The idea of life in a simulation is often perceived in a negative way, as if consciousness and our experiences do not matter. Bostrom’s argument though does not undermine the significance of our lives, suggesting our thoughts and actions still have meaning in the context of reality.