Simulation-argument

Several of you have been debating whether or not we are simulated.

Following Nick Bostrom's trilemma we have:
[A]t least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.
simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Weatherson then refutes Bostrom saying dumb shit like ∀Φ: Cr(Φ | f Φ = x) = x or Cr(Sim | f
Sim = x) = x is false.
brian.weatherson.org/sims.pdf

Bostrom then wrecks him in his reply and says that Weatherson's argument misinterpreted his, and was largely illogical.

simulation-argument.com/weathersonreply.pdf

When will you guys accept that we're a simulation?

how do i log out?

bullet

These papers probably went over your guys' heads. Too many symbols and logic for Veeky Forums

This is so cute.

Back when feudal monarchies were all the rage, people conceived nature in terms of hierarchies, with the lion being the king of the animals, the oak being the king of the trees, and so forth. Now that we live in the era of computers, some people fantasize about the universe being a big computer. There really is nothing new under the sun.

Your red herrings and strawman fallacies have no power here. And neither did Weatherson's.

Not only did you argue something that was never mentioned, you never rebutted a single claim made in any paper.

meant for

I'm appealing to your common sense. Philosophers of the past who attempted to use simple inductive reasoning to make strong metaphysical claims about the nature of reality have almost always looked foolish in retrospect. Empiricism is the only reliable tool for discerning the properties of existence, because the alternative is to entertain innumerable plausible-sounding theories from induction.

While you are correct that seeking conclusive evidence is extraordinarily difficult, I disagree that we should ignore abstract or philosophical queries--particularly when concrete evidence is virtually impossible.

Besides, the first step to concrete evidence is abstract thought.

Reality is a simulation being played out within the mind of God