The Simulation Argument

Here you can peruse the debate that followed the paper presenting the simulation argument. The original paper is here, as are popular synopses, scholarly papers commenting or expanding on or critiquing the first paper, and some replies by the author. The simulation argument continues to attract a great deal of attention. I apologize for not usually being able to respond to individual inquiries. I hope you might find what you're looking for on this page.

Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?

HTML PDF

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

"The Simulation Argument is perhaps the first interesting argument for the existence of a Creator in 2000 years." - David Pearce (exaggerated compliment)
"Thank you so much, Dr. Bostrom. You have proved that my psychiatrist was wrong all along." - Anonymous correpondent (misfiring compliment)

Joe Rogan Experience #1350 - Nick Bostrom

The Simulation Hypothesis Explained by Nick Bostrom

Is the Universe a Code?

Are We Living in an Ancestor Simulation? ft. Neil deGrasse Tyson

Discussion on the simulation argument with Lex Fridman

On anthropics and the simulation argument with Sean Carroll

Explained by Elon Musk

Is Reality Real? The Simulation Argument

The simulation argument reconsidered

PDF

Uses the claim make by Greene (2018) - that spawning simulations would expose the simulating civilization to termination risk - to argue that civilizations have reason not to create simulations, and that therefore they don’t. And hence that the second disjunct in the original simulation argument (i.e. strong convergence towards simulation abstinence) is true. Note however that for this to work the convergence would have to be very strong: if even a tiny fraction of posthuman civilizations value creating simulations more than they value reducing their own termination risk, or if some members of such civilizations occasionally create ancestor simulations despite this going against the interests of their wider civilization, then most people like us could still be simulated.

AI Creation and the Cosmic Host

PDF

Argues that there may well exist a normative structure, based on the preferences or concordats of a “cosmic host” - which could include simulators and/or other superbeings. Suggests that we may have moral as well as prudential reason to favor paths that lead with relatively high surety to the creation of superintelligence that becomes a good cosmic citizen – i.e. that conforms to cosmic norms and contributes positively to this wider cosmopolis.

Reality+

The central thesis of the book is virtual reality is genuine reality. This applies both to full-scale simulated universes, such as the Matrix, and to the more realistic virtual worlds of the coming metaverse.

The real advantages of the simulation solution to the problem of natural evil

PDF

Argues that a simulation-based solution to the problem of evil avoids several difficulties that beset more traditional subsumption theodicies.

The Termination Risks of Simulation Science

PDF

Argues that we ought to refrain from creating ancestor simulations ourselves and from conducting experimental probes to check whether we are in a simulation, as doing either of these things would risk getting our simulation shut down (posing a termination risk): in the one case, to limit resource requirements at the basement level from a potentially indefinite recursion of simulations; and in the other case because the purpose of the simulation may thwarted if we empirically discern whether we are in a simulation or not (as oppose to if we are merely making probabilistic philosophical inferences that are available to simulated and nonsimulated civilizations alike).

Natural evil: the simulation solution

PDF

One traditional response to the problem of evil is to attribute it to the exercise of human free will, which is said to be such a good that an omnipotent and perfectly benevolent being might create human free will even foreseeing that we will sometimes make bad choices. This leaves the problem of natural evil (earthquakes, malaria, etc.). Might a possible theodicy be that such evils are in fact not natural but the results of the exercise of free will on the part of simulators - who may have been endowed with free will by an omnipotent and perfectly benevolent being for the same reasons humans are traditionally thought to have been thus endowed?

Freak Observers and the Simulation Argument

PDF

Argues that although there may be more simulated than standard nonsimulated versions of human-like experiences, yet there is an even greater number of such experiences of a third category: those belonging to freak observers aka Boltzmann brains (i.e. spontaneously materializing free-floating conscious brain-states that arise extremely rarely as random thermal fluctuations). Some cosmological models appear to imply that most brains are Boltzmann brains, because the universe can continue to them indefinitely far into the future, long after all planets and spaceships etc. have decayed. Crawford concludes that there must be something wrong with the underlying reasoning pattern. However, an alternative conclusion is that the reasoning pattern is fine but that there is something wrong with the class of cosmological theories that imply that Boltzmann brains dominate. In fact, this is how cosmologists now mostly use the Boltzmann problem: to derive an important theoretical constraint on viable cosmological models.

On the “Simulation Argument” and selective skepticism

Develops an objection similar to the one discussed under question 4 in the Q&A.

The Simulation Argument

A critical discussion in the context of the doomsday argument.

The Doomsday Argument and the Simulation Argument

Analyzes some analogies and disanalogies between the doomsday argument and the simulation argument, and concludes that the former fails while the latter succeeds.

Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

PDF

A low-level physics simulation using the simplest simulation methods, which simulated our universe on a grid with finite resolution, would result in some potentially observable distortions of the simulated physics because of the rotational symmetry breaking effects of the simulation lattice. I would think that even the earliest simulations of systems sufficiently complex to contain observers would make use of powerful computational shortcuts that would eliminate the opportunity to observe any such discrepancies (mostly the simulation would take place at a much higher level of abstraction in order to reduce the computational demands).

A Patch for the Simulation Argument

PDF

This article reports on a newly discovered bug in the original simulation argument. Two different ways of patching the argument are proposed, each of which preserves the original conclusion.

Theological Implications of the Simulation Argument

PDF

Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Argument (SA) has many intriguing theological implications. We work out some of them here. We show how the SA can be used to develop novel versions of the Cosmological and Design Arguments. We then develop some of the affinities between Bostrom’s naturalistic theogony and more traditional theological topics. We look at the resurrection of the body and at theodicy. We conclude with some reflections on the relations between the SA and Neoplatonism (friendly) and between the SA and theism (less friendly).

The Simulation Argument: Some Explanations

PDF

My response to Brueckner (above), in which I argue that he has misconstrued the simulation argument. I also argue that he is mistaken in his critique of the idea that simulated beings may themselves create ancestor-simulations.

The Simulation Argument again

Short article by Brueckner in which he proffers “a new way of thinking about Bostrom’s argument”. (See below for my reply.)

Living in a Simulated Universe

PDF

We explain why, if we live in a simulated reality, we might expect to see occasional glitches and small drifts in the supposed constants and laws of Nature over time.

Historical Simulations - Motivational, Ethical and Legal Issues

A future society will very likely have the technological ability and the motivation to create large numbers of completely realistic historical simulations and be able to overcome any ethical and legal obstacles to doing so. It is thus highly probable that we are a form of artificial intelligence inhabiting one of these simulations. To avoid stacking (i.e. simulations within simulations), the termination of these simulations is likely to be the point in history when the technology to create them first became widely available, (estimated to be 2050). Long range planning beyond this date would therefore be futile.

The Simulation Argument: Reply to Weatherson

PDF

My reply to Weatherson’s paper (above). I argue he has misinterpreted the relevant indifference principle and that he has not provided any sound argument against the correct interpretation, nor has he addressed the arguments for this principle that I gave in the original paper. There are also a few words on the difference between the Simulation Argument and traditional brain-in-a-vat arguments, and on so-called epistemological externalism.

Are You a Sim?

PDF

Weatherson is prepared to accept the Simulation Argument up to, but not including, the final step, in which I use the Bland Principle of Indifference. In this paper, he examines four different ways to understand this principle and argues that none of them serves the purpose. (For my reply, see the paper below.) Note that Weatherson accepts the third disjunct in the conclusion of the Simulation Argument - i.e. that there are many more simulated human-like persons than non-simulated ones. By contrast, I do not accept this: I think we currently lack grounds for eliminating either of the three disjuncts.

Innocence Lost: Simulation Scenarios: Prospects and Consequences

PDF

Those who believe suitably programmed computers could enjoy conscious experience of the sort we enjoy must accept the possibility that their own experience is being generated as part of a computerized simulation. It would be a mistake to dismiss this as just one more radical sceptical possibility: for as Bostrom has recently noted, if advances in computer technology were to continue at close to present rates, there would be a strong probability that we are each living in a computer simulation. The first part of this paper is devoted to broadening the scope of the argument: even if computers cannot sustain consciousness (as many dualists and materialists believe), there may still be a strong likelihood that we are living simulated lives. The implications of this result are the focus of the second part of the paper. The topics discussed include: the Doomsday argument, scepticism, the different modes of virtual life, transcendental idealism, the Problem of Evil, and simulation ethics.

How to Live in a Simulation

HTML

If you might be living in a simulation then all else equal you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look more likely to become rich, expect to and try more to participate in pivotal events, be more entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happier and more interested in you.

Traditional philosophical skepticism and brain-in-a-vat arguments

On anticipated technological capability of running realistic simulations

Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap

PDF

Minimum energy requirements of information transfer and computing

Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies

Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology

HTML

How Long Before Superintelligence?

HTML

Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation

Matrioshka Brains

HTML

The Age of Spiritual Machines: When computers exceed human intelligence

Ultimate physical limits to computation

Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence

Pigs in Cyberspace

The Physics of Information Processing Superobjects: The Daily Life among the Jupiter Brains

PDF

The Physics of Immortality

Existential risks (How we could fail to develop the required technologies)

The methodology of observation selection effects

Miscellaneous

Some simulation-scenarios depicted in fiction

Pantheon

Bedlam

Atlanta (S02E07): Bostrom’s Simulation Scene

Permutation City

The Matrix

The Thirteenth Floor

Vanilla Sky

Open Your Eyes (Abre los Ojos)

I don’t know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility

Welt am Draht

Note: This is by no means a complete list. Some others include Simulacron III (1963), aka Counterfeit World, by Daniel F. Galouye, which was made into the movie Welt Am Draht (1973) by Rainer Werner Fassbinder (The Thirteenth Floor was also based on Simulacron III); Exit to Reality (1997) by Edith Forbes; Otherland by Tad Williams (1996-2001); the film Dark City (1950, 1998); eXistenZ (film directed by David Cronenberg, 1999); many stories by Philip K. Dick; Realtime Interrupt (1995) by James P. Hogan, etc. etc. Jay Shreib produced a play inspired by the simulation argument, World of Wires, which opened in New York in January 2012.

Nick Bostrom

Photo of Nick Bostrom

Nick Bostrom’s homepage is at nickbostrom.com.

Newsletter

Receive (rare) updates:

Bibliography