The Simulation Argument
A philosophy paper that argues one of three unlikely things must be true, and one of them is that we are probably simulated.
In 2003 the philosopher Nick Bostrom published "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" in the journal Philosophical Quarterly. It is a logic argument, not a claim backed by an observation. It says at least one of three statements must be true: almost no civilizations reach the point of running detailed simulations of minds; almost none that do are interested in running them; or we are almost certainly living in one.
The argument depends on assumptions that can be questioned: that consciousness can run on a computer, that enough computing power will exist, and that future people would choose to run such simulations. Bostrom himself has said he does not claim the third option is the likely one.
No physical test has been demonstrated. Proposals to look for "glitches" in cosmic rays or in the structure of space have been published but remain speculative, and critics point out that a good simulation could hide any such trace.
We put it at Almost credible because the argument is serious and peer reviewed, even though nothing observed supports it directly.
Bostrom's argument says that if future people run many simulations of their ancestors, simulated minds would far outnumber real ones.
Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder and others argue the idea is not science because no observation could count against it.
