Bostrom's trilemma
- Filed under
- Tech
- Type
- Background entry
- Sources
- 9
Image: wired.com
Bostrom's trilemma points less to simulations themselves than to a missing hierarchy of higher-level civilizations above ours.
Summary
Bostrom’s argument is best read as a conditional probabilistic dilemma, not as direct evidence that we are simulated. If conscious ancestor-simulations become feasible and are produced in enormous numbers, simulated observers could vastly outnumber biological originals; under an indifference principle, a randomly selected observer would then probably be simulated. The argument leaves open which premise fails.
- At least one of three propositions is very likely: civilizational extinction before posthumanity, near-total reluctance to run ancestor-simulations, or near-certainty that we are simulated.
- If mature civilizations run vast numbers of conscious ancestor-simulations, simulated observers could greatly outnumber non-simulated observers.
- The argument does not determine which trilemma disjunct holds; it says the three cannot all be unlikely.
Deeper Insight
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.
- Tokayer characterizes the disputed move as inferring “we are simulated” from “beings like us can create simulations.”
- The reference class may obscure the distinction between originating observers and simulated descendants, weakening the probability inference.
Sources · 9
Featured · Analysis · philarchive.org
The Simulation Argument is a Non-Sequitur
The Simulation Argument is a Non-Sequitur Mordechai Tokayer Abstract Bostrom’s simulation argument presents a trilemma: either civilizations almost never reach technological maturity, or they almost never run ancestor-simulations, or we are almost certainly living in a simulation. This paper demonst
Read sourceAnalysis · philpapers.org
Bostrom's Simulation Argument is a Non-Sequitur
# Bostrom's Simulation Argument is a Non-Sequitur PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation). 0 citations. ## Authors - Mordechai Tokayer: h-index 0; 0 citations; corresponding author ## Topics - Space Science and Extraterrestrial Life - Philosophy and History of Science - Humanities and Social Sciences ---
Read sourceAnalysis · simulation-hypothesis.com
Bostrom’s trilemma
Thinkers 13/14 # Bostrom’s trilemma Nick Bostrom, “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?”, Philosophical Quarterly · 2003 Not an argument that we’re simulated, but an argument that one of three propositions must hold. Picture a civilisation that gets advanced enough to run detailed simulations of
Read source