Bostrom's trilemma

The simulation argument shows beings like us could build worlds. The critic Tokayer's catch: it never shows anyone above us built ours.

Bostrom's 2003 argument, the famous case that we are probably simulated, runs on head counts: if mature civilizations run enough ancestor-simulations, copies outnumber originals. The critic Tokayer spots the flip. The math is about what we might build, then quietly becomes a claim about what built us. Add thermodynamic limits on how many worlds anyone can run, and the head count starts to wobble.

• What it could changeIf the critique holds, the simulation question goes back to being open instead of a bet you're told you'll probably lose.
• How it touches todayThe argument is quoted far more often than its assumptions, like substrate independence, the idea that minds can run on any hardware.
• Our futureWe may never learn whether we're the copy, but we can refuse to be handed the odds.

• A central critique says the trilemma concerns lower-level civilizations creating simulations, but does not establish that any civilization exists above our level to simulate us.philarchive
• Tokayer characterizes the disputed move as inferring “we are simulated” from “beings like us can create simulations.”philpapers
• The reference class may obscure the distinction between originating observers and simulated descendants, weakening the probability inference.philarchive +1