Even astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave it a50-50 chance.

But on the flip side, some consider it anunscientific, unprovable mental exercise.

Perhaps we shouldhopewe’re living in a computer simulation.

So we make one.

Option C:We never reach that point.

(That is, humans become extinct before we can build one.)

Technically, Bostrom believes people will strive for a simulation that’ll help us understand our ancestry.

But given our unwavering attachment to The Sims and Skyrim, I’d say it could really be anything.

The rise of technology

Let’s first talk about the important day Bostrom refers to.

That’s the theoretical point at which we can finally make a simulationidenticalto all aspects of our world.

Musk often cites that certitude while discussing the existential theory.

That’s where we were.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer scientist Rizwan Virk, for instance, wrote abook on the subject.

That means if it happens, whenever that might be, the forsaken day exists somewhere on our timeline.

Congratulations if you’ve gotten this far – take a breath, because it gets weirder.

If you have any thoughts or philosophical ideas you’d like to see explored,you might email me!

OK, but why would we be in the simulation?

All we have to do is press a big red LAUNCH SIMULATION button that’ll be posted online.

Humanity finds itself at a crossroads: to push or not push the button?

The prospect of not doing so seems a little wishful.

There are billions of people in the world; the theory suggests it’s rather hard to argue otherwise.

That’s why Bostrom suggests option B is highly implausible.

For the sake of discussion, let’s rule it out.

That leaves A and C. Let’s say we go with A.

The button gets pushed.

The “people” would have their own technological advancements.

They’d make versions of Facebook, iPhones and Xbox games.

Like us, Bostrom suggests they’d probably poke the irresistible, taunting button.

The saga goes on.

That means if humans created even one simulated universe, we can assume an incomprehensible amount of them exist.

Who’s to say we’re in a regular, true-to-the-bone reality?

Also called a based reality, a nonsimulated world might not be in the cards for us.

Well, what’s the likelihood of us being in a simulation, you wonder?

Studies of that outcome’s exact probability are ongoing, such as inthis paperfrom last year.

End of the world?

Remember that last, scarier option, option C?

What if we never get to the level where we can make a lifelike simulation?

That would mean something prevented us from reaching the day the shiny button becomes available.

Will technology suddenly stop getting better?

Or worse, will the world end?

The limiting step may not be the tools, but rather the knowledge.

Innovation continues to happen in new directions of the field, as well.

Amind-bending hypothesisfrom last year takes note of how Bostrom’s argument relies on the universe being physical.

It poses the proposition that “reality” could merely be an expression of our thoughts.

Could the “simulation” just be our imagination?