Historical Context of Simulation Hypothesis Essay

Introduction

The simulation hypothesis dates back to the seventeenth century, as suggested by philosopher Rene Descartes. Nick Bostrom advanced the theory and founded it on facts postulated in 2003. Bostrom demonstrated the possibility of a post-human civilization in his paper, "Are You Living in a Simulation?" The simulation hypothesis argues that mankind lives in a simulated world and all the physical creations, including the earth, are more likely to be virtual than real. Advanced computational power makes it possible to recreate virtual replicas of the physical ancestral world with high precision and astonishing fidelity that makes it all appear real, and allows humankind to run endless simulations on these platforms. Nick argues that it is not very easy to detect this simulation because of its close representation of reality, which clouds judgement. This perception of the simulation as reality builds on the substrate-independence axiom, which is "the idea that mental states can supervene on any of a broad class of physical substrates." Therefore, the simulation hypothesis looks back in time and critically evaluates the changes that have taken place and in turn makes predictions on what is expected in the future by the incoming generations. The hypothesis argues on the basis that there is continuous improvement of every figure and system and these advancements change dynamically. The simulation hypothesis thus outlines the possibility of an entirely virtual reality in future and also the raises the question of the authenticity of human existence and the reality of the daily experiences.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Summary of "Are You Living In a Simulation?" by Nick Bostrom

In "Are you living in a computer simulation?" Nick begins with predictions and probabilistic information trying to evaluate whether mankind may be living in a computer simulation. One of the core premises of the argument is that the probability of living in a computer-simulated is very high, as evidenced by Nick's statement that "one's credence in the hypothesis that one is in a simulation should be close to one". The argument raises many questions about all the theories and studies that have been conducted about the world, making him doubt whether these laws still hold even with the understanding that the world could also be a simulation. Computer simulations are so powerful in convincing the humans that they are real and therefore, Nick argues that due to their convincing nature, it will take time for people to notice their virtual nature. The computer simulation idea also maintains that if people lived in a computer simulation, their integration onto these platforms would be near seamless due to the phenomenon of singularity - a unity of man and machine. Nick captures this observation in his statement that if one were to "create a mind on a computer it would be sufficient to program it in such a way that it behaves like a human in all situations." Therefore equipping the world with artificial minds and feeding it with enough details and information may ensure that these systems and minds would not be capable of determining that they are computer simulation products.

The probabilities given by Nick in his paper are products of mathematical computations involving both the simulated people and the real people. This makes a strong argument that for now there are few people with the knowledge of the simulation reality and therefore they run and propel these simulations without their knowledge. There are no proper and convincing reasons for this possibility people do not see the necessity to make changes in the way they live and act in different circumstances towards different aspects of life. In summation, without the realization of the current computer simulations, it is almost impossible to change or take them under control. The excitement about the drastic change in technology and its impacts promotes and advocates for computer simulations without knowing. Systems are improved every day with higher capabilities than the earlier versions thus enabling these technologies to have higher control of the world than men; computer simulation is dominating day by day and the earlier humankind realize and be conscious of this the better. Lastly, if in this era, computer simulation is almost a reality; the later generations will live virtually. The possibility of living as post-humans is therefore probable, which will come at a cost and consequences. Still, the twist is that this future is only possible if the current existence of humanity is already a simulation.

Critique of the paper on simulation hypothesis

According to man's conception of the universe, the existence of the earth in its current state is based on physical laws and theories that are supported by evidence and which comprise reality. For example, the laws of physics describe most of the process of the universe and why things they are the way they are. Chemistry theories describe the state of matter and its compositions as well as the process that occur to change the state and composition of matter. Also, the biological sciences explain issues about life and ecological processes in the earth. The simulation hypothesis as supported by Nick Bostrom negates the existence of all these laws and processes terming them as virtual. This is very confusing and misleading. Adoption of computer simulation hypothesis automatically disregards all the theories and laws that ever existed in the scientific world, something that is not very easy. Adoption of the simulation hypothesis depicts that the laws of science will no longer hold and all the experiments and proven processes are false and not applicable. The world cannot be virtual while the people are real and this will therefore slow the post-human civilization. All in all, the scientific laws and the simulation hypothesis are like polar opposites, and they both cannot hold; one has to be adopted and disregard the other.

Bostrom outlines, more than once, that the post-human era is an inevitable eventuality of the current existence, and that consequences will accompany this finality. The truth is Bostrom does not indicate the kind of outcomes to be expected, but the reader can guess that they will not be very desirable. The fact that he does not outline these consequences of the simulation theory, though relatively convincing, makes it appear vague.. Further, the post-human term has dominated the text, given that all the technology and current modernization has been made possible by human efforts. Nick failed to elaborate on the meaning of post human civilization deliberately but only ominously mentions man's impotence in determining the course of events towards this end in the statement, "certainly ... reach a posthuman level" . This could have been very easy if he had shed some light on the term otherwise, convincing humanity to adopt and believe something that is unknown and incomprehensible to them may be even more difficult. It is not possible to operate and to make things happen without human intervention and hence virtually will be a position of assuming that humans will seize their control of the current dynamism and post-humans take over. It would be more reasonable if the paper outlines the meaning of different terms, analyze them and draw the reader closer to the realization of the arguments made by the author. Finally, the consequences of a vitual world should be elaborated to portray a clear image of what to expect and how to get there.

The whole simulation hypothesis by Nick Bostrom is based on mathematical formulae and subsequent probabilities. Mathematical expressions are compelling and easier to demonstrate the cause and effect relationships of the different dependent parameters and variables. However, the source and the foundation of the formulas are not very clear, besides, it is not very straightforward how the number of people, both real and virtual, was obtained. The question about the figures is still outstanding even though the author strives very hard to defend them through different theories. Could this be the computer simulation on which his theory is based? The source of the figures is virtual and therefore unknown. This raises some questions about data reliability. The data that can, thus, be drawn from these calculations cannot be accorded absolute trust. There is the limitation of the collection of the user data, the sample size and population is not indicated. Most of the research and evidence-based papers have a logical flow of events from data collection trickling al this data to analysis and subsequent conclusions. The failure of this logic makes the reader doubt the credibility and reliability of the figures and the probabilities on which all the conclusions are drawn.

Nick firmly believes that humans are living in computer simulation period. He is also very confident that the simulation is taking effect and overtaking the reality day by day and the human race is too blind to reality. The question that the reader would anticipate to ask is how to evade or reduce the probability of occurrence of the post-human civilization era. Nick Bostrom does not recognize that this is a question worth answering and hence the information from his conjecture is minimally actionable. Computer literate generations spring up and even improve over time; the exciting part about this is that it comes along with a lot of benefits. For, example, the current technology improves the existing versions of the current technology, with a new version that is easier, convenient and economical. Even if people were to delay the post-human civilization, is the world expected to shun and do away with technological advancements? While the question of the legitimacy of human perception, whether real or virtual, needs to be addressed, the relevance of the findings should be explicitly demonstrated. Nick should have considered methods through which the public can benefit from the current technology and the input of the members of the public on the way to ensure that they are in control and at the same time embrace innovation and technological dynamism.

New and recent arguments in simulation theory

Different scientists and theorists have conflicting opinions on the simulation hypothesis. ElonMusk has expressed his interest in the simulation theory concurring with Nick that mankind do not live in total reality. He has been very committed in making efforts to free the earth to Mars with his rocket. He does not believe that the world in itself is real and therefore upholding the findings and the stand of Nick to be a great invention of current generation. Musk compares the technology that was in existence forty years earlier to what humans have now and with the current advancements, he is confident and sure that simulation hypothesis holds. Terrile also seems to hail the same song, illustrating his stand by the rate at which the world is transforming. He says that " if technological progress continues unabated then these shortcomings will eventually be overcome". Therefore, some scholars think that simulation hypothesis is real, with their reasons.

Max Tegmark profoundly opposes the simulation hypothesis and demonstrates how illogical and far-fetched the theory is. Being a physics professor at MIT, he firmly believes that scientists mainly physicists, have made evidenced experiments and findings on laws that govern the universe. He feels that if these laws were to hold, then physics and other sciences are not accurate and this conclusion is absurd in itself. Max believes that the existing simulations that are formed are founded on laws of physics and can be explained through them. Thus, disregarding the laws of physics would mean ignoring theses simulations and consequently disregarding the simulation hypothesi...