The argumentative essay supports the following motion: There is a significant probability that we are in a computer simulation”.
Among many others experts in the field of science and physics, it was Elon Musk who had recently claimed that there is almost no chance that humankind is not living in a computer simulation. The proponents of a computer simulation model proclaim a less materialistic lifestyle foe they perceive serious reactions as a result of a logarithm composed by the simulation designers.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Probability That We Are In A Computer Simulation".
The simulation argument as such does not assume one’s actual being in a simulation. Rather, it aims to defend one of the following hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that all the living species on Earth would not go extinct prior to getting technologically mature. The second hypothesis is that apart from us, there are no other technologically mature civilizations that would aim to run computer simulations of minds. The third hypothesis is that we are all definitely living in a simulation. While there is high degree of implausibility of each of the three hypotheses, nonetheless, there are solid grounds for a simulation argument. According to Oxford Professor, Nick Bostrom, we cannot reject all three of them, which means that one of them is absolutely correct.
Largely, the simulation argument grounds on the principles of formalism and probability theory. Supposedly, the first hypothesis is false. Then a considerable amount of all species at the current level of development will get technologically mature. If the second hypothesis is false as well, then a considerable amount of the technologically mature species will deploy the available computational resources to drive computer simulations of minds. This indicates that the concept of computer simulation assumes a huge potential. Given that the first and the second hypotheses are false, the civilization will become overwhelmed with simulated minds, whereas the number of non-simulated minds that deploy organic brains will be minor. This means that almost all human minds will get simulated rather than use biological capacities. Consequently, given the predominant majority of simulated minds, most of us will soon stick to simulation reality rather than remain in minority that would depend on biological neurons.
Providing that the first and the second hypotheses are both false, there is no other option but to accept the third hypothesis. While we are short of specific information to indicate which of the three hypotheses is true, each one deserves a certain degree of probability. Apparently, the first hypothesis seems rather straightforward. We can only assume that some highly hazardous technology developed by a technologically advanced civilization would destroy it from within. The second hypothesis assumes a solid convergence among advanced civilizations not interested in running computer simulations of minds like humans do. The second hypothesis would become credible only if all civilizations would implement computer simulations. In this case, an advanced intelligent life would become seriously constrained. Finally, the third hypothesis assumes the major intrigue in philosophical discourse. Providing that this proposition is credible, we all have been already living in the computer simulation matrix previously created by a more advanced civilization. The empirical implications of the last option assume relevant predictions for the future. Living in a simulation would necessitate revising common sense, extrapolating past trends, and apply scientific modeling.
While the probability that we are in a computer simulation is high, the simulation hypotheses assume subtle effects on our daily behaviors. The comprehension of the motives applied by the simulators assumes all kinds of predictions about an artificially created simulated world. As for now, however, we can only guess the credibility of such an option for much depends on the will and actions of the simulators that would probably allow us to switch on simulated reality for everyone. Eventually, at the point when we will start running our simulations, only the third hypothesis will remain credible.
- Bostrom, Nick. Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? Philosophical Quarterly, 2003. Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243‐255.
- Rothman, Joshua. What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation? June 9, 2016 https://www.newyorker.com/
