Talk:Simulation hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Epistemology Metaphysics Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of mind

[edit] Editing Notes

This page is a companion page to Simulated Reality, and is specifically dedicated to the Hypothesis that we are, in fact, living in a simulation.

The page will eventually contain the following:

• 1. A statement of Nick Bostrom's Argument
  2. A discussion of whether it is now, or ever would be, technologically possible to Simulate Reality
  3. A discussion of the purpose of such a simulation, together with the ethics of doing it.
  4. An analysis of the evidence (pro/con) in support of, or in denial of the hypothesis, in the light of the first two, and the logic of Bostrom's argument.

References within this article might be very 'iffy', given that the material is highly speculative. Editors are asked to select sources with care, and not simply to reference blogs or other contentious material without having sufficient corroborative, more substantial sources. Please do not add personal material and/or individual comments on the item.

Please do not add to the SH item until the structure has been established.

--TonyFleet 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Structure & Headings

Somewhere: 'As Bostrom's argument points out, in order for us to be living in a simulation, a race of beings would need to be technologically capable and motivated to create such a simulation.' The Simulation Argument

Technological and Scientific Capability Required

Ethical and Motivational Issues

Evidence for and Against the Hypothesis

--CatWatcher 07:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Shouldn't this be at Simulation hypothesis, with the current title of Simulation Hypothesis being a redirect? It's the other way around right now. --Sapphic 06:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to propose the renaming, since nobody seems to be objecting and I think it's the right thing. --Sapphic 01:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not merge "Simulation hypotheses" into "Simulism". If you insist on a merge, do it the other way around. The term "Simulation argument" is far more common than "Simulation hypothesis" -- which itself is far more common than "Simulism". For instance, a Google phrase search (using the double quotes) currently returns 20,500 hits for "simulation argument", and 4,230 hits for "simulation hypothesis", but only "1,560" hits for "simulism". --Parsiferon (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)