Simulation theory: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
===The core argument=== | ===The core argument=== | ||
The core of the simulation argument does not try do demonstrate that reality is, in fact, a simulation. It merely shows that one of three propositions should be accepted as true <ref name=”1”></ref> <ref name=”3”></ref>. The general idea can be understood without mathematics, although a formal version of the argument uses probability theory <ref name=”7”> Bostrom, N. (2006). Do we live in a computer simulation? New Scientist, 192(2579): 38-39</ref>. Although each of the propositions may seem implausible, if the simulation argument is correct, at least one is true <ref name=”6”></ref>. According to Bostrom (2003, 2006), the three | The core of the simulation argument does not try do demonstrate that reality is, in fact, a simulation. It merely shows that one of three propositions should be accepted as true <ref name=”1”></ref> <ref name=”3”></ref>. The general idea can be understood without mathematics, although a formal version of the argument uses probability theory <ref name=”7”> Bostrom, N. (2006). Do we live in a computer simulation? New Scientist, 192(2579): 38-39</ref>. Although each of the propositions may seem implausible, if the simulation argument is correct, at least one is true <ref name=”6”></ref>. According to Bostrom (2003, 2006), the three propositions presented are: | ||