Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument

 

Nick Bostrom, in this article, “Are you living in a computer simulation?” makes a probabilistic analysis concerning the possibility that humans, and our reality, might be a part of a computer simulation.[1] He makes the conclusion that it is not only possible, but that there is a high possibility that this might be the case and therefore, what we consider reality could actually just be a simulation. The argument that Bostrom makes have considerable shaken the philosophical community because it has allowed for a consideration of the possibility that he might be right and that what are termed as natural laws might not be what it seems.[2] The intuitions of individuals have also come to be questioned, especially those regarding their existence and it is likely that the beliefs that individuals have is an attempt to make us believe that were are real and because of this, the beliefs that we hold dear could actually be false. Bostrom’s simulation theory is one that promotes the idea of intelligent design and is therefore sound because it provides a viable insight into what individuals perceive as reality.

Bostrom starts his argument by making the assumption that if humans were able to model the mind with enough detail, they and create a world within which the artificial minds would function, then they would essentially be the same as we are.[3] This argument is based on the idea of substrate-independence, which promotes the idea that if humans can create artificial minds and develop a world with sufficient detail, it would be possible to ensure that the artificial minds themselves believed that they were real and would not recognise that they are actually a mere simulation. They would be incapable of recognising their nature as simulations and would instead continue acting as if they were real. The only way that they would recognise that that were a mere simulation would be through their creators giving them the knowledge.[4] The significance of this argument is based on the manner through which Bostrom allows for the consideration of the possibility that the human reality may actually not be real and instead, is a mere simulation based on the actions of creators that have programmed humans to believe that they are real. The argument allows for the establishment of an alternative thought concerning the origins of humans and the programming that makes them who they are.

Bostrom further argues that humans have the capability of creating a computer that would be able to not only simulate the mind, but also the universe. This can theoretically be done in sufficient detail to ensure that there is the promotion of a situation where there is the creation of a universe of sufficient detail that allows its denizens to view it as real as humans view their own.[5] The argument made by Bostrom is based on the projections of the directions towards which the current technology will be taking in the coming years as well as the possible computing machines that will be developed based on the theoretical designs that have been considered so far. The grand nature of this assumption should not discourage individuals from considering it because it remains valid, especially when one considers the rapid technological advancements that have been made within the last few decades. The technological advancements have allowed for the creation of an environment within which humans have the capability of undertaking actions that were previously thought to be impossible, as seen through the use of technology to rapidly communicate across the globe with few hindrances.

The argument made above is pertinent because it provides an insight into the possibilities based on the simulation theory. The consideration of the possibility that humans and all other creatures may be programmed to act as they do by a higher intelligence is significant because it allows for an alternative view that might actually hold some truth.[6] Furthermore, the concept of intuition is also called into question because rather than being based on instinct, it may actually be based on intelligent design, which ensures individuals do and act as they have been programmed. In this case, individuals are as they have been programmed rather than actually being real. The argument for a simulation is one that allows for the consideration of the reasons behind why individuals act the way that they do and greatly challenges the conception of the universe and all that is in it. Rather than being as it is, Bostrom makes the argument that there is a possibility that humans and everything else within the universe are a mere simulation of what the creators intend.[7] One could go further and argue that because of the potential that we are actually simulations, there is a likelihood that we are essentially beings that have been made to believe that they are real.

Bostrom attempts to give an estimate of all the people that exist that are actually simulated. He considers these individuals to not exist at the fundamental level of reality and instead, they have been simulated and believe that they are real. The potential of the number of people that have been simulated is equal to the probability of simulations that are being done multiplied by the number of simulations that would be done if they were done multiplied by the average number of people in each simulation.[8] The significance of this situation can be seen through the way that Bostrom seeks to show the potential number of simulated individuals, and it shows that if simulation were indeed done, then a significant number of those individuals that believe they are real but are actually simulated would actually be quite significant. Therefore, since simulations are unaware that they are actually simulations, it creates an environment within which what they perceive to be reality could actually be false.[9] Additionally, their assumption that they are real is also a false one because they are unable to recognise the reality of their existence, which is basically that they are a computer simulation without actual control over their lives since they are controlled by outside forces.

Bostrom makes the use of the principle of indifference as a means of enhancing his argument.[10] This is done through the consideration of the manner through which individuals who believe themselves to be real are actually simulated. There is the promotion of the idea that the probability that we are living within a world that has been simulated rather than the real world is equivalent to the fraction of all individuals that have actually been simulated. This scenario is enhanced through the argument that while undertaking the simulation of the entire universe to the quantum level is currently not possible, it should not be discounted because the probability of new physics that can make such a simulation possible being discovered is actually quite high.[11] However, a realistic simulation of the human experience requires much less technology and instead, it is possible to ensure that there is the creation of simulated humans who interact normally with their simulated environment. The achievement of the latter goal is possible as long as the simulated humans themselves do not notice any irregularities between themselves and their environment. As has been mentioned above, the only way that they can notice such a scenario is where they are provided the knowledge by the creators of the simulation.

In order for simulations to be undertaken effectively, many have to be done simultaneously. Bostrom assumes that civilisations develop to such an extent that they are able to run simulations.[12] However, in order to attain a simulation of our reality, it is pertinent to ensure that numerous simulations are run to such an extent that it allows a more realistic scenario to be attained.[13] Because of the high number of simulations, the number of individuals that have been simulated will be greater than those that are not simulated. This assumption is pertinent because it allows for a consideration of the possibility, a very high one, that we are living in a universe that is actually a simulation. There is therefore a high possibility that individuals living in the world are actually simulations and that what they perceive to be real, including themselves, is actually a simulation. Bostrom seems to promote the idea that individuals are actually simulations and that there is the need to consider that simulations are not only possible, but can also be developed, with the individuals living within them being completely oblivious of their circumstances. Thus, because large simulations by civilizations would be possible, it is almost certain that individuals in our reality are actually living within such a simulation without realising that they are indeed within it.

Bostrom makes the argument that humans have no reason to change the way of their life because of his approach. Instead, he proposes that there is the need to ensure that there is the maintenance of doubt in such a way that allows individuals to live their lives while at the same time considering the potential that they could just be a simulation.[14] One of these two options could be accurate and because of this, there is the need to promote a scenario where the individuals involved are able to reflect upon their existence while at the same time seeking to make the most of what they have. Living within a simulated universe is a concept that has the potential of bringing about many changes in the lives of individuals. However, this should not necessarily be the case because the maintenance of a level of scepticism is necessary in helping individuals to make the most of their lives. Bostrom’s position is one that does not seek to change the perception of individuals concerning their existence, but should rather be considered as a means through which he essentially expands philosophical thinking into a new dimension where other possibilities apart from the traditional ones are put into consideration. It would therefore be better for individuals to be half sure concerning their existence, whether it is based on the real or simulated universe, in order to be able to better undertake the process of enhancing their knowledge concerning themselves and their reality.

The consideration of the possibility that we are living in a simulation could entail a number of things. Among these is the fact that there is the potential of whoever is running the simulation to turn it off; resulting in a scenario where we cease to exist.[15] These circumstances can also be seen in the manner that individuals will seek, following this realisation, to make sure that they keep the person or persons running the simulation interested in us in order to prevent them from turning off the simulation. Moreover, if there is the advancement of the belief that the simulators are willing to either reward or punish us for our actions, individuals are more likely than not to ensure that they undertake those actions that are aimed to please the simulators in order to avoid punishment for deviant behaviour. Thus, individuals will spend a considerable part of their time trying to find out the type of behaviour that is most likely to earn them a rewards, and once they find it out, undertake to make sure that they act on it. Consequently, if individuals gain the knowledge that they are actually living within a computer simulation, there is the potential that their lives will be significantly affected. This is to such an extent that they will more likely than not ensure that they live in a manner that is aimed at pleasing the simulators. The profound effect on the way humans lead their lives will be observed in all dimensions; especially when one considers the human propensity toward religion.

Bostrom’s argument is one that has real implications about the human worldview. The future of the species could be determined by the answers that are gained from the simulation theory. If individuals are put in a position where they accept that they are indeed living in a simulation, it could determine the way that they interact with one another and their environment. There is a lot at stake because of Bostrom’s theory and because of this there is the need to ensure that there is a clear consideration of the manner through which humans could be part of a simulation rather than reality. Under such circumstances, it would be worth it to consider the diversity of probabilities that are involved in the chance that we could be a part of a simulation. The human existence within a simulation and its potential reality has significant implications, especially when one considers the conception of reality that has been a constant for humans for thousands of years. Therefore, it would serve humanity best not to take Bostrom’s argument at face value and instead, there should be widespread scientific debate as well as a consideration of the manner through which such a simulation could actually take place. Such debate could help to open up new avenues through which to view the world without necessarily losing the value of being human. There should be the promotion of a scenario where individuals are able to continue living their lives as they always have without losing any of its value because to do the latter would create an environment where life will cease to be as it has always been.

Assuming that we are a part of simulations and that these simulations are actually run, it would be impossible to determine whether we live within them. This is an argument that essentially counters that of Bostrom which is based on the assumption that we may be living within a simulation. A computer simulation on such a large scale would be extremely difficult for any civilisation to develop because to do so would require a lot of time and effort in order to run.[16] Furthermore, it is necessary to consider that simulations tend to be temporary and because of this, there is the potential that they could be impossible to achieve. The current reality is one that shows any evidence of existence and there is actually no scientific proof of its being either a simulation or a part of numerous other dimensions. Therefore, a consideration of Bostrom’s argument would actually be going too far afield and forgetting to consider the reality that is therefore and has been scientifically proven. An attempt to consider the implication of the world as a simulation would not only be a most difficult one, but the discovery that it is indeed so has the potential of changing human life for the worse. This is especially considering the likelihood of human life losing all meaning and the creation of a society that is anarchical as all order within it is brought to an end. It is also possible that the only way that we can determine whether our universe is a simulation is through the process of developing our own simulations. This is a technology that if done with the correct objective, humans could develop on a large scale within a few decades. In the process, it will be possible to come up with universes that are mere simulations, with the only real one being ours.

The above discussion considers the way that Bostrom’s simulation theory promotes the idea of intelligent design and is therefore sound because it provides a viable insight into what individuals perceive as reality. It looks into Brostrom’s argument that our reality and the universe as a whole could be a simulation and that individuals do not realise it because of their being programmed not to. It is only through the actions of the creators of the simulation that it can be possible for humans to realise that they are actually living within a simulation. This argument is pertinent because it allows for a consideration of our reality as being essentially based on false beliefs. It also considers the way that technology can be developed to such an extent that it allows for the development of simulations that can be used to simulate reality to the quantum level. In this way, there is the promotion of a scenario where either a higher civilisation that is more technologically advanced could have potentially created a simulation of our universe as a means of studying it or seeking to make sure that their own civilisation survives an apocalypse. Thus, we could be living within a simulation without even realising it despite the prevalent human beliefs concerning their existence.

---

[1] Nick Bostrom, "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?," The Philosophical Quarterly 53, no. 211 (2003): 243.

[2] Jason Barker, "Are We (Still) Living in a Computer Simulation?: Althusser and Turing," Diacritics 43, no. 2 (2015): 93.

[3] Anthony Brueckner, "The Simulation Argument Again," Analysis 68, no. 3 (2008): 224.

[4] Peter Jenkins, "Historical Simulations-Motivational, Ethical and Legal Issues," Journal of Futures Studies 11, no. 1 (2006): 23.

[5] Olle Häggström, "Challenges to the Omohundro–Bostrom Framework for Ai Motivations," foresight  (2019): 1.

[6] J Seibt, "What Your Computer Still Can’t Know: A Refutation of Bringsjord’s Refutation of Searle’s Refutation of Bostrom and Floridi," What Social Robots Can and Should Do: Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2016/TRANSOR 2016 290 (2016): 280.

[7] Alexey Turchin, "Message to Any Future Ai:“There Are Several Instrumental Reasons Why Exterminating Humanity Is Not in Your Interest”," 18.

[8] Norman Swazo, "A Critical Engagement of Bostrom’s Computer Simulation Hypothesis,"  (2015): 1.

[9] Paul Franceschi, "The Simulation Argument and the Reference Class Problem: A Dialectical Contextualism Analysis," Philosophiques 43, no. 2 (2016): 371.

[10] Nick Bostrom and Marcin Kulczycki, "A Patch for the Simulation Argument," Analysis 71, no. 1 (2011): 54.

[11] Brian Eggleston, "Review of Bostrom's Simulation Argument," Stanford, https://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromReview.html#:~:text=Review%20of%20Bostrom's%20Simulation%20Argument&text=In%20%E2%80%9CAre%20you%20living%20in,living%20in%20a%20computer%20simulation.

[12] Nick Bostrom, "The Simulation Argument: Reply to Weatherson," The Philosophical Quarterly 55, no. 218 (2005): 91.

[13] "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?," 248.

[14] Tim Clark, "Carter’s Cartesian Paraphrase and “Operational Autonomy”: The Carter-Bostrom Anthropic Principle, the Principle of Mediocrity, and “Being No One...”," Journal of Evolution & Technology 17, no. 1 (2008): 1.

[15] Alasdair M Richmond, "Why Doomsday Arguments Are Better Than Simulation Arguments," Ratio 30, no. 3 (2017): 221.

[16] "Countering the Simulation Argument: The Simulation Hypothesis," Philosophical Apologist, https://philosophicalapologist.com/2016/06/08/countering-the-simulation-argument/.