Resolved: That the Bostrom Simulation argument is likely correct.

The Bostrom Simulation Argument means the argument made by Nick Bostrom in the following paper: http://www.simulation-argument.com... Likely means more likely than not, i.e. having a probability of more than 50%. Correct: True; in this context, accurately reflecting reality. To recap, Nick Bostrom argues: "At least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation." He collapses the first two propositions in the following sentence, "it follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation." I also will not detail the evidence that #1 and #2 are plausible. Regarding #1, this is the argument of Bill Joy, in his famous Wired magazine, Why The Future Does not Need Us." http://www.wired.com...... Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems and co-author of the Java language specification, is no luddite, yet he agrees with Kurzweil that we are reaching a technological inflection point with Genetic, Robotic, Information and Nano-tech ("GRIN") technologies. See also, Martin Rees, who argues that we have a 50/50 chance of escaping this century. See: http://www.youtube.com... . , particularly beginning at the 8 minute mark. The plausibility of proposition #2 is defended by Ray Kurzweil and other "posthumanists". Kurzweil has a great track record in picking technology trends (i.e. he has made a lot of money predicting the correct direction). He invented the first reading machine for the blind, was influential in OCR technology and invented the synthesizer. Said Bill Gates: "Ray Kuzweil is the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence." Kurzweil's book, The Singularity is Near, is replete with graphs showing that not only are we in the midst of exponential growth in a variety of technologies but that we are hitting the "knee" of the curve, i.e. that point where the curve will appear to go verticle from our current perspective. http://www.youtube.com... Just to be provocative, here is Kurzweil being interviewed by Glen Beck: http://www.youtube.com... See also, Rees at 12:25 min into the youtube clip. #2 posits that we will be "post human" but will lack any motivation to do ancestor simulations. #3 flows logically if #1 and #2 are not correct, assuming you believe in the power of exponential growth to create the singularity discussed by Kurzweil et al. If anyone doubts that we live in a pivot point of history, Carl Sagan said it best: "This is the first moment in the history of our planet when any species, by its own voluntary actions, has become a danger to itself - as well as to vast numbers of others." Sagan further wrote that this pivot point in human history could be a common event for intelligent life evolving in the enormity of the universe: "It might be a familiar progression, transpiring on many worlds - a planet, newly formed, placidly revolves around its star; life slowly forms; a kaleidoscopic procession of creatures evolves; intelligence emerges which, at least up to a point, confers enormous survival value; and then technology is invented. It dawns on them that there are such things as laws of Nature, that these laws can be revealed by experiment, and that knowledge of these laws can be made both to save and to take lives, both on unprecedented scales. Science, they recognize, grants immense powers. In a flash, they create world-altering contrivances. Some planetary civilizations see their way through, place limits on what may and what must not be done, and safely pass through the time of perils. Others, not so lucky or so prudent, perish." In his 1961 inaugural address, President Kennedy stated, "The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life." I will not go further since Bostrom's argument is available to see in the link provided; therefore, I can only add my little touches until the negative takes us in a direction.