I am doing a persuasive speech on the topic of universe simulation theory. Basically, I am trying to convince the audience of it. I need a solid outside look on the speech, even if you can't think of specific corrections I can make, I really am curious how it comes off to people who have never heard of the theory before. Thanks
Have you ever imagined living inside of a video game? Well in short, you're most likely living inside of one. It sounds crazy at first but I would like to challenge your concept of existence and introduce you to the argument of simulated reality.
To lay the foundation for this concept, let's look at the standard scientific model of the universe. Everything; including energy, space, and time were created from the single moment known as the big bang. Newton's laws of motion state that every action has an equal and opposite reaction meaning that something needs to happen in order for something else to happen. Fire can't happen without a spark, and smoke doesn't happen without a fire, so basically nothing happens without a catalyst. So what made the universe explode into what it is now if there was no time, space, or energy for that spark to exist in? The model suggests that although nothing existed before the explosion, there was somehow still a spark that happened to create the universe and everything around you. When you think about it, everything as you know it was created in an instant at a time when there was no time and there was no things. The catch is, none of that really matters because science right now is testing to see if we live inside a simulation. So for a moment in time I'd like to ask you to put aside you're beliefs and look at recent science.
The best accepted argument on this subject was presented by Oxford Professor Nick Bostrom. This award winning Philosopher argues that the chances of our universe being a genuine universe are slim to none. In his 2003 publication, he gives an equal chance of three possibilities. Possibility number one; our planet and our civilization goes extinct. Possibility number two: although we may have the technological potential or may be building up to the potential, we for whatever reason choose not to continue advancing the complexity of computer simulations. Or of course possibility number three: we reach the stage of creating a simulation as advanced as our own universe, and thus are almost certainly living in one ourselves. What Bostrom is trying to argue with this third situation is that if there is at least one species in the entire universe with technology advanced enough to produce simulations of the universe (or for example a video game as complex as the universe), then what is there to say that we are not within a simulation ourselves.
Now let's look at the possibility of this situation. A Stanford review of the theory at we.Stanford.edu describes how human technology has reached a stage where computing power increases exponentially every few years, which leads many computer engineers to say that we could reach the point of being able to simulate a universe ourselves within 50 to 500 years. Whichever way you look at it; on a cosmological scale that is a tiny droplet of time in an infinitely vast ocean of time. Now consider how many species out there are millions upon billions of times more advanced than we are. The odds are extremely likely that they would have this technology already, so now ask yourself how many simulations they would be creating. Expanding this window, imagine how many simulations there are being created throughout the entire universe. This number is mathematically infinite, and according to Bostrom the only way to counter the mathematical probability of this being the case is that a species that actually has the ability to simulate a universe decides not to, or dies before they can.
Trillions of universes within the real universe, what are the chances that you're in the real universe? So if just one species on one planet in the universe is technologically advanced enough to create a video game as complex as our reality, then you are almost without a doubt, living inside of a video game. Thank you.
Hi. The topic you pick is quite interesting. But there is a place I think you can improve
Fire can't happen without a spark, and smoke doesn't happen without a fire, so basically nothing happens without a catalyst.
I think this inference is rather weak in logic. You are raising two examples and bringing up a conclusion. Maybe you can say like "according to a scientist, nothing happens without a catalyst" (but that's doubtful too.
That's just supposed to be an extension of Newton's law saying every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but you made me realize that part could be worded better so thank you. Did you fully understand the argument I was trying to make though? I'm mainly worried that the way it's worded will throw people off and they won't understand what I'm getting at
Hi. I can follow your ideas, despite some doubts.But I am having difficulties understanding the relation between the 3 theories Bostrom (quoted paragraph) presented and the paragraph before them. You can try to build a stronger relationship between these two paragraphs
The best accepted argument on this subject was presented by Oxford Professor ...
... then what is there to say that we are not within a simulation ourselves.
These two sentences relationship is a bit weak too
Whichever way you look at it; on a cosmological scale that is a tiny droplet of time in an infinitely vast ocean of time. Now consider how many species out there are millions upon billions of times more advanced than we are.
Just my humble opinion