A scientist shows that both scenarios are equally likely

The idea that our existence is the product of the simulation of a super-powerful computer, and implemented by a more technologically advanced civilization, is almost as likely as living in a real world, suggests a study by astronomer David Kipping of Columbia University (USA).

In his work, the results of which were published on the website of the Multidisciplinary Institute for Digital Publications (MDPI) – the researcher started from the simulation argument proposed in 2003 by Nick Bostrom, University of the United Kingdom.

This hypothesis poses a scenario in which we are virtual beings generated by a computer, which requires that at least one of the following three propositions is false: 1. Humanity always extinguish before developing the capacity for such simulation; 2. Even if they reach that level, humans they show no interest in the simulation of his own ancestral past; 3) The probability that we are living inside a simulation is close to one.

Two scenarios

In turn, Kipping analyzed this argument using the Inferencia bayesiana, which allows you to calculate the probability of an event, called posterior probability, by first making an assumption about the object in question and assigning it a ‘prior probability’.

He then reduced Bostrom’s trilemma to a dilemma, grouping the first two propositions together, since in both cases the end result is that simulations are excluded.

Therefore, the two resulting scenarios represent a physical hypothesis (without simulations) and another simulation hypothesis (There is a basic reality and also simulations). Then, assigning them the ‘prior probability’ according to Bayesian logic, the author applies the indifference principleie a standard assumption used in the absence of other data.

Reality vs. simulation

Finally, Kipping took into account that the physical hypothesis is a nulliparous reality, that is, it does not generate new ‘daughter’ realities. Whereas, in the case of the simulation hypothesis, most of the simulated realities would also be nulliparous, since with each new simulation within another, the supposed real-world supercomputer at some point would drain your computational resources.

By applying all this reasoning to the Bayesian formula, Kipping concludes that the scenario in which we live in a true reality is slightly more likely than the virtual world.

Of course, he warns that the day humanity manages to create a simulation with sentient beings within it, the physical hypothesis will be excluded and, according to these calculations, it will be possible to affirm almost with certainty that we are virtual beings.

If you found it interesting, share it with your friends!