The simulation argument

Abstract, as run through the tool

As written, the conclusion doesn't follow from these premises.

Steps marked ‘assumed’ state what you'd have to assume to reach the conclusion.

1. 1.

   This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true.

2. 2.

   The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a 'posthuman' stage.

3. 3.

   Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof).

4. 4.

   We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

5. 5.
   assumed

   If [1] and [2] and [3] and [4], then 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.

   Assumed so the listed premises lead to the conclusion.

6. 6.

   Therefore, 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. [1,2,3,4,5]

View run

Editor's note

Input was the paper's abstract. Disagreement with the standard reading: the abstract asserts a disjunction (at least one of three propositions holds), but the as-found layer records each disjunct as a separate premise, which is stronger than the text says. The repair supplied a bridging conditional by deterministic fallback; the learned repair stage did not complete. Read the tool's premises 2 to 4 as the three horns of the trilemma, not as three assertions.