The OG Nick Bostrom argument [1] makes an argument for simulation theory with some reasonably simple math you can see in the paper with only a few variables:
- `f_p` - Fraction of all human-level technological civilizations that survive to reach a posthuman stage
- `f_I` - Fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations
- `N_I` - Average number of ancestor-simulations run by a posthuman civilization
- `H` - Average number of individuals that have lived in a civilization before it reaches a posthuman stage
And then the formula for the fraction of observers with human-type experiences (after simplifying) is just: f_sim = (f_p * f_I * N_I) / (f_p * f_I * N_I + 1).
By first arguing that `N_I` is likely to be very large (because, pretty much, why not) -- you can thus conclude that one of these three conditions are met:
1. `f_p ~= 0` -- or the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
2. `f_I ~= 0` -- or any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
3. `f_sim ~= 1` -- or we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
It's all feels pretty similar to the Fermi paradox to me -- which I'm also suspicious of for reasons I can't justify properly. Something about point estimates for variables like `f_I` is... weird? Idk. I'm honestly not good enough at math to disagree - but it also feels like folks who are too good at math might be using `f_I` in equations in a way that isn't legitimate.
Like, assuming the "existence" of `f_I` as a concept to reason with -- doesn't it feel like more might be sneaking in with this assumption?
[1] https://simulation-argument.com
- `f_p` - Fraction of all human-level technological civilizations that survive to reach a posthuman stage
- `f_I` - Fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations
- `N_I` - Average number of ancestor-simulations run by a posthuman civilization
- `H` - Average number of individuals that have lived in a civilization before it reaches a posthuman stage
And then the formula for the fraction of observers with human-type experiences (after simplifying) is just: f_sim = (f_p * f_I * N_I) / (f_p * f_I * N_I + 1).
By first arguing that `N_I` is likely to be very large (because, pretty much, why not) -- you can thus conclude that one of these three conditions are met:
1. `f_p ~= 0` -- or the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
2. `f_I ~= 0` -- or any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
3. `f_sim ~= 1` -- or we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
It's all feels pretty similar to the Fermi paradox to me -- which I'm also suspicious of for reasons I can't justify properly. Something about point estimates for variables like `f_I` is... weird? Idk. I'm honestly not good enough at math to disagree - but it also feels like folks who are too good at math might be using `f_I` in equations in a way that isn't legitimate.
Like, assuming the "existence" of `f_I` as a concept to reason with -- doesn't it feel like more might be sneaking in with this assumption?
[1] https://simulation-argument.com