The Simulation Argument
Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?

Nick Bostrom, PhD
Philosophy Faculty, Oxford University

This website features scholarly investigations into the idea that you might currently be literally living in a computer simulation, running on a computer built by some advanced civilization. Films like The Matrix and novels like Greg Egan's Permutation City have explored the idea that we might be living in virtual reality. But what evidence is there for or against this hypothesis? And what are its implications? The original paper featured here, "Are You Living in Computer Simulation?", presents a striking argument showing that we should take the simulation-hypothesis seriously indeed, and that if we deny it then we are committed to surprising predictions about the future possibilities for our species.

See http://www.simulation-argument.com/ for the details.

best ever movie made about a virtual reality was that "dark city" movie
i think it was called...where an alien race used their mental powers to shape the city till they got to their homeworld.

Nick's argument gets weak in the summary when he goes from "is possible at all" to "is necessarily true for us" without any real explanation. He presumes very strongly that the shape that computing will inevitably take in the future is the simulation not only of mental constructs but also immersive environments for them that are indistinguishable from how those constructs would see a "real" world if they could inhabit one.

It could also be that computers will become self-modifying distributed systems with which we have a sort of symbiotic relationship, or become so incorporated into our bodies that the difference between a "real" world and a "simulated" one (which most people should realise is a bit of a narrow distinction) will dissipate entirely, since our perception of the "real" world will be through computer-modified senses.

I see no validity in his argument, which poses in advance (as a premise) that his sort of simulation is the inevitable outcome of technological development, and then goes on to pull out the same conclusion by claiming that if we don't destroy ourselves, we'll go unstoppably on to our simu-destiny. I have a hard time crediting this.

This is sort of like the idea of god. What's the reason for this incredibly complex universe? An incredibly complex creator/program! This just deflects the question of how that complexity came about and it has the benefit of sounding scientific.

A similar thing happens when your car breaks down. The tendancy is to jump to the conclusion that the problem is with the most complex part of the car you know the least about, like the transmission. In other words, the human mind prefers the notion that complex effects equal complex causes. Recent computer simulations have proved that complex effects can have simple causes.

which brings me to ask if god is the alpha-omega or the infinity if you will...can what he creates exist in infinity or can god only control the finite.

Eh... that's not really related, is it? If you follow the computer simulation theory, it must be couched in a larger, hidden context... as a result, God and Infinity hardly have a place in our context, and don't necessarily belong even in the larger one.