Bostrom's Simulation Argument is Hypothesis

Nick Bostrom states the argument does not explain which of the three choices is more valid, but I think the nature of his phrasing and his need to phrase it indicates his bias regarding our reality actually being a simulation. David Pearce has stated to me in comment Nick does favour the simulation hypothesis. David wrote in comment "Nick takes seriously the Simulation Hypothesis," which David clarified in another comment by stating Nick has informally said the likelihood the hypothesis between "10% and 20%." In the video below at 14:27 Nick says he thinks the hypothesis is "less than 50% likely to be the case." I also note on another occasion David informed me (see comments here) Nick gives only a 10% possibility to the hypothesis.

So I disagree with Nick's assertion of non-bias (3:50 and 5:29 and 6:10) - I think the argument does imply the hypothesis from Nick's viewpoint, despite his assertion of the hypothesis being less than 50% likely. Less than 50% likely is actually very vague, how much less, 1%, 5%, or 20%? The hypothesis according to Nick could be 49% likely.

"Less than 50% likely" could be reasonably likely. If an activity had a less than 50% chance of death would you gamble your life in those odds?

I'd say the hypothesis is actually less than 1% likely, which is actually being generous because less than 1% allows for a great margin for error. I think anyone who admits the hypothesis is less than 50% likely actually has a strong bias towards the probability of it.

See my previous post on this issue with links to a lengthy debate.



I have previously compared the alleged equivocal aspect of the simulation argument to the equivical tone of Intelligent Design proponents. Intelligent Design advocates state the don't definitely know life has been intelligently designed but they state it is possible life and the universe is intelligently designed, but this sitting-on-the-fence is an illusion, it is bluff. Note the teleological argument, which is very similar to the simulation argument.

The simulation argument is a sham, it is an illusion of rationality portrayed to advance an untenable premise. Despite allegedly sitting in the fence the simulation proponents demonstrate a clear bias in favour of our reality being simulated. If you read between the lines, their silence or fence sitting speaks volumes. This is how Christian intelligent design proponents promote their theory; they know they can’t clearly state we are definitely intelligently designed because such a clear statement would be revealed as nonsense, thus they merely raise ID as a possibility. I suspect Nick and others would like to state definitely our reality is simulated but reluctantly they must sit on the fence because they do have some intelligence therefore they realise they cannot let their fantasises run totally wild, but if you look beneath the veneer you will see the fence sitting is a façade.