>Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument (2003) posits that at least one of three, often considered, equally plausible possibilities is true regarding the future of humanity and artificial intelligence.>1. Extinction Before Maturity: Humans will likely go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage capable of creating high-fidelity, conscious, ancestor-level computer simulations.>2. No Interest in Simulations: Technologically mature, posthuman civilizations will have little to no interest in running simulations of their evolutionary history.>3. We Live in a Simulation: Almost all individuals with human-like experiences are currently living inside a simulation.Your thoughts on this in 2026?
>make unfalsifiable claim>"heh, nobody can debunk this"Hate retards like bostrom
>>18468712Well, what counts as post-human? Is a post-human civilization necessarily one capable of such simulations? How precise do the simulations need to be to count? There are physical limits on information density.A 4th possibility is that such simulations remain permanently impractical, even for post-human civilizations, and we go extinct as a matter of cosmic inevitability.A 5th possibility is that we do build such simulations, but we are not in such a simulation ourselves and the majority of human-like experiences are not living in a simulation.One could also argue that there is no distinction between simulation and base reality to begin with, that all possible universes exist platonically and computer models merely allow us to examine them.
>>18468712You need to be over 18 to post here. See >>18468714
