From: lexfridman
The **simulation argument** is a philosophical proposition exploring the possibility that we are living within a computer simulation. This idea is distinct from the [[simulation_hypothesis]], which posits that we are currently in a simulation. The argument was first formulated by philosopher Nick Bostrom and suggests that one of three propositions is likely true.
## The Three Propositions
1. **Extinction Before Technological Maturity**: Almost all civilizations at our current technological stage will go extinct before reaching a level of technological maturity where they could run simulations of conscious beings. This suggests there are fundamental filters or risks that prevent civilizations from advancing beyond our current stage <a class="yt-timestamp" data-t="07:01">[07:01]</a>.
2. **Convergence Towards No Interest**: Civilizations that do reach technological maturity lose interest in creating simulations. This includes the notion that ethical concerns or cultural shifts might make creating such simulations undesirable or unnecessary <a class="yt-timestamp" data-t="20:23">[20:23]</a>.
3. **Currently Living in a Simulation**: If technological civilizations do not inevitably go extinct and do not abandon or lose interest in simulations, then we are most likely living in a computer simulation. In this scenario, the number of simulated beings vastly outnumbers non-simulated ones, making it more probable that our own experiences and consciousness are simulated <a class="yt-timestamp" data-t="03:36">[03:36]</a>.
## Implications and Considerations
The argument does not specify which of the three propositions is true, and Bostrom himself does not assign probabilities to each. However, he acknowledges the philosophical tension and considers the simulation hypothesis as one of many possibilities given our current state of technological and scientific knowledge <a class="yt-timestamp" data-t="49:32">[49:32]</a>.
### Metaphysical and Philosophical Interest
While the simulation hypothesis is often viewed through a scientific lens, the simulation argument is primarily philosophical. It raises questions about our understanding of computing, consciousness, and the nature of reality. It poses challenges for fields like cosmology and physics, questioning our assumptions about the fundamental building blocks of the universe and our place within it <a class="yt-timestamp" data-t="05:31">[05:31]</a>.
### The [[doomsday_argument]] Comparison
The simulation argument shares a conceptual similarity with the Doomsday argument, another philosophical proposition using anthropic reasoning to predict the likelihood of future events based on our existence and birth rank. However, the simulation argument relies on a weaker form of anthropic reasoning, known as the Bland Principle of Indifference, which suggests that if a large proportion of entities exist in a simulated state, we should assign a probability to our own existence being simulated proportional to that proportion <a class="yt-timestamp" data-t="06:12">[06:12]</a>.
> [!info] Application of the Argument
>
>
> The argument prompts us to consider the long-term implications of advanced technology and the ethical considerations of creating simulated consciousnesses. It encourages a proactive approach to existential risks, noting that trial-and-error methods are not viable in these scenarios <a class="yt-timestamp" data-t="07:28">[07:28]</a>.
In summary, Nick Bostrom's simulation argument offers a provocative framework for considering the nature of our reality and the future trajectory of technologically advanced civilizations. It challenges us to envision a reality where our experiences and consciousness might be the computational products of some advanced civilization's design choices.