Are you living in a computer simulation? [pdf]
In order to make the simulation hypothesis remotely believable, you have to assume a dozen premises which are nonstarters. In particular:<p>&gt;Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously infeasible, unless radically new physics is discovered. But in order to get a realistic simulation of human experience, much less is needed<p>I&#x27;m glad Bostrom says simulating the universe is infeasible (most people loosely following his argument ignore this), but I&#x27;m not convinced that simulating an infinitesimal portion of the universe is sufficient. Rewinding the simulation whenever one of the billions of simulated humans gets skeptical while doing science sounds absurd and kind of defeats the purpose of a simulation, no? In general, I don&#x27;t think you can ad-hoc &quot;fill in the details&quot; of a particular piece of a simulation and have it make sense because you weren&#x27;t simulating the inputs in that much detail.<p>I wrote quite a bit more here: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;jere.in&#x2F;the-simulation-hypothesis-is-nonsense" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;jere.in&#x2F;the-simulation-hypothesis-is-nonsense</a>