Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument says
that at least one of the following is true:
1) The human species is very likely to go
extinct before reaching "posthuman"
stage.
2) Any posthuman civilization is extremely
unlikely to run a significant number
of simulations of their evolutionary
history.
3) We are almost certainly living in
a computer simulation.
It's a bit confusing that the two first ones
are made to be negative statements, so I would
clean that up by saying:
It is likely that any civilization that reaches
the capability of high-powered simulation will
use this capability and thus the number of
consciousnesses that are simulated is so high
compared to "real" beings that I am very likely
experiencing a simulated consciousness.
I have not dug very deeply into the argument, but I have a sort
of "instinct" against it. It smells like a tautology. I have
seen some reactions to it but not one that questions the idea
that we can make any predictions about the "real world" from
inside a simulation.
So, my "argument" would be that if we are in a simulation, there
are a very limited amount of facts that we could guess about the
makers of the simulation. Even if inside our simulation it seems
likely that we would be interested in creating ancestry
simulations, this doesn't actually mean anything.
I guess this means that I am for the option number 2, although it
would have to be heavily re-written. I would not call it
"posthuman", to begin with. It could literally be the mind of
god. It could be one conscious being that is imagining life as a
multitude. It could be in any kind of universe where consciousness
is possible.
I guess here Nick would say something like "the possibility it
is human is a lot higher than that of being god" but I disagree.
There is nothing that we can say about the possibility, since
our idea of possibility comes from our interaction with the world
we are in. This is where it is a tautology. Or maybe you could
call it anthropomorphism on a meta-cosmic scale: "Since we are
what we are, our possible creator has to be like us".
It's a bit like if in Plato's cave you were to say that since we
see these shadows, we can infer that there is a sun that is
sending light through space and there has to be a three
dimensional mammal in front of the sun. No. If you don't see
the real world, it could be almost anything that is causing
the wall to have these forms. It could be that the wall is
changing color spontaneusly. It could be that the sun is on the
other side of the wall and the wall is translucent. It could be
that you have several eyes like a spider and the image is in fact
a combination of overlapping images from several directions.
The object could be a 3D mammal or a 7D fish. Or a 2D wall
parasite.
I find it very suspect that you could make predictions in such
conditions.
