I'm new and don't know what if any discussion has been given to the Simulation argument stated here.....but anyway i came across it and thought it interesting.

Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?

1. Intuitively do you think it probable?
2. Why or why not?
3. Can any philosophy student please explain to my uneducated self the equations that make the argument valid [section IV & V)
4. In a religious context is this argument as interesting as it suggests, with regard to morality and the existence of a god/gods

Here is the abstract...please read the whole article at the link above.

__________________

DUE TO THE EXPLICIT CREDIBILITY AND LOGIC UNDERPINNING THE ABOVE ARGUMENT, THIS POST COULD CAUSE SEVERE INADEQUACY, HYSTERIA OR SYCOPHANCY IN THE READER...
THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA

Why would they want to?

I'd be interested in viewing my ancestors for about an hour. Then, curiosity sated, I'd wander off. Why would anyone want to run such a simulation?

Not very philosophical, but there you go.

LOL! You obviously won't become part of a posthuman civilization.


Ps. This guy is a department head at Oxford; and an Australian National University, relatively famous, professor of Philosophy gave Bostrom's argument a probability of 20%.

Maybe people should start praying to the technician/s maintaining the Sim.
There is a higher probability that you'll get a result.

__________________

DUE TO THE EXPLICIT CREDIBILITY AND LOGIC UNDERPINNING THE ABOVE ARGUMENT, THIS POST COULD CAUSE SEVERE INADEQUACY, HYSTERIA OR SYCOPHANCY IN THE READER...
THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA

I'm a complete philosophical novice so I'm sorry I can't enlighten you. Seems real interesting though. What does he mean by "post human"? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's a stage where humans have surpassed everything that makes them human; emotion, compassion etc. Am I close or completely off?

Also, the part about living in a computer simulation is essentially "The Matrix" isn't it? If so, it seems to me that the only argument against it goes something like "its so absurd it can't be true". Similar problem to the God question. We can't absolutely prove it one way or another. However, unlike the God question, there is no evidence to support this argument either way. There is no scientific evidence (to my knowledge) suggesting that we are part of such a simulation, nor is there any suggesting otherwise.

The evidence is that it is a logical equation thats premises are based in reality, eg computational power and human curiosity, and seem to logically lead to 3 possible conclusions, one of them being the simulation.

How could there be scientific evidence if the entire universe is a complex simulation or one of an infinite number of simulations.

I read in a Hawking book that a noted physicist was giving a lecture about the earth and its positions in the universe when a little old lady stood up and said," What you've said is rubbish, the earth is flat and it rests on a giant turtle." The physicist self assuredly replied, " and what does the turtle rest upon", to which the old woman replied, "You think you're very clever sonny, but its turtles all the way down.

Of course somewhere we must conclude that the turtle [simulation]rests upon something rather more distant to contemplate as relevant to this existence, but

Unlike 'the god question' for which there is a similar lack of evidence either way, the simulation argument rests on faith in logic while god rests on faith in illogic.

I pick logic, even if it has an 'absurd' conclusion.

As an agnostic it does not matter to me either way, I exist, but for theists and atheists alike this argument does have some interesting implications about the existence of a creative designing intelligence and the nature or natures that intelligence may represent.

It is not the same as the matrix- that was a mind world/ body world schism- the argument does not state your body is plugged in somewhere else while your mind lives out this world.

__________________

DUE TO THE EXPLICIT CREDIBILITY AND LOGIC UNDERPINNING THE ABOVE ARGUMENT, THIS POST COULD CAUSE SEVERE INADEQUACY, HYSTERIA OR SYCOPHANCY IN THE READER...
THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA