1

The simulation argument by Nick Bostrom seems to take for granted that there are (or will be) many other human-level civilizations in our universe.

For example the first of the three options in the conclusion is “The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero”.

But what if we are the only human-level civilization that exists or ever will exist in our universe? In that case we wouldn’t be able to work with fractions, we would either reach a posthuman stage or not, so there would be no “fraction” to work with.

I am not looking for unrelated reasons why the simulation argument is wrong, I am looking to understand if the simulation argument must assume there are (or will be) other human-level civilizations in our own universe to get off the ground.

Gueda
  • 215
  • 1
  • 3
  • 1
    It does not assume that, it is a consequence, and what-ifs are moot. The argument is probabilistic, what it assumes is that the ground universe is "typical", and we are "typical" ([Copernican principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle)). In other words, it imagines some ensemble of possible universes and classifies what is *likely* to happen in "typical" ones into three categories. The same way thermodynamics describes what is likely to happen in typical gases. If Maxwell's demon happens to dwell in one of them the conclusions will simply not apply to it. – Conifold Sep 11 '22 at 09:06
  • The simulation argument only requires that there is an operating system and *one* operator. It does not require *any* civilizations exist, not even the one we seem to experience. I have long wondered why there are not more hard solipsists. – BillOnne Sep 11 '22 at 14:10
  • Thanks @Conifold that is great. You mention the argument assumes that “we” are typical. Isn’t that the same as picking one red ball out of a hat (of 1 million red and black balls) and assuming the red ball is typical? I know an objection to the SA is that we can’t learn much from just observing our own universe as it’s working with a sample of 1. – Gueda Sep 19 '22 at 14:29
  • @Gueda: It doesn't take many balls out of a well shaken bag, to start inferring things about the total. Life started on Earth within 0.2billion years, which implies given Earth-like conditions it's quite likely. We know there are a LOT of Earth-like planers. Seeing human-like or level intelligence as inevitable once life occurs, is a leap, but seems a reasonable. The Drake Equation gets into what can be inferred about the odds. There could be many reasons we haven't seen aliens yet, if they're actually not being there at all, many would consider that evidence we're in a simulation – CriglCragl Oct 11 '22 at 17:17
  • @BillOnne The problem is, when you ask that question, there is no one to respond to it. – Scott Rowe Feb 08 '23 at 23:27

2 Answers2

0

The argument does not make that assumption about our universe. To the contrary, a possible outcome of the simulation hypothesis is that there is no life outside of our solar system and that our universe will end suddenly and without warning.

Bostrom's simulation hypothesis assumes that a civilization, in a universe, will achieve the ability to simulate a universe like ours well enough to fool the conscious minds inhabiting that universe. Given that this is likely, (which is a fairly substantial given), it follows that most conscious minds will likely exist inside of a simulated universe, because the "physical" universe will be unique, and there will be many simulated universes. We are conscious minds, therefore we are most likely to live in a simulated universe.

philosodad
  • 2,788
  • 15
  • 25
0

The argument assumes that there is some form of intelligence having the wherewithal and motivation to create the simulations. The intelligence doesn't have to be human or to have evolved from humans.

Marco Ocram
  • 8,686
  • 1
  • 8
  • 28