We are Not Living in a Computer Simulation
The prompt is: Construct an argument that seeks to establish either that we are living in a computer simulation or that we are not.
You can use both content from the lecture slides or external sources as long as you can build a strong argument with strong evidence to support it.
Please look at the three png files that explain the essay type.
This is a philosophy course and it does not really have a rubric. The basic requirement is
Length: About 5 pages. Do not exceed 6 pages.
Format: Use a 12 pt font such as Times New Roman, double-space your work, and use 1-inch margins
Citations: You must give credit where credit is due. You may use whichever citation style you prefer, e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago, etc. For information how to use these various styles, see https://owl(dot)purdue(dot)edu/owl/purdue_owl.htmlLinks to an external site.. You must include a 'works cited' page, even if you only cite the course textbook.
Can you use AI tools such as ChatGPT or Bard to complete this assignment? No. AI tools cannot be used for any portion of this assignment, i.e., they cannot be used to generate ideas or for proofreading/editing or for anything else. Questions about this?
Prompt: Construct an argument that seeks to establish either that we are living in a computer simulation or that we are not. (Please see pages 87-91 of the textbook for guidelines on writing argumentative essays.)
Grading criteria:
The individual sentences of your paper must be grammatical.
Your train of thought should be clear; that is, the reader should be able to follow the flow of your ideas.
You should support your ideas with reasons and evidence.
You should consider possible objections to your argument.
What to avoid:
No fluff, filler, or wasted words, e.g., don’t start the paper with: “From the dawn of humanity philosophers have debated the nature of science…” Make your words count.
Don’t make unsupported assertions.
Watch our for repetitive writing as it is often a sign of disorganized thinking.
Writing advice: Do more than one draft of the paper. Revise your work to improve clarity.
Professor’s Name
Institution
We Are Not Living In A Computer Simulation
Introduction
Technology has been one of humankind’s greatest discovery; coming in handy in various ways and aspects. Through computer simulation, some processes that initially looked so difficult to handle have now been made easy since simulation has given rise to automation. Technology and society continue being sophisticated as time advances. The current age has witnessed a lot of technological advancements in society, something that has greatly altered virtually everything. The information age has shown that technology has permeated in most of the routine processes. Automation and computer simulation continue taking centrestage and people embrace technology for most of their activities. It clearly illustrates that technology is part of everything. Computer simulation has been more of a gift for the present digital age and continues making the impossible to be possible. Recently, there has been the development of artificial intelligence (AI), something that has greatly revolutionized society. All these gifts of technology have made the world a better place while at the same time generating debate. Even though the current age continues embracing technology, especially in automation and computer simulation, there is enough evidence to prove that mankind is still not living in a computer-simulated world.
Reasons To Prove We Are Not Living In A Computer Simulation
As technological frontiers continue being stretched to the limit, the thought that mankind is now living in a simulated environment continues gathering pace. This, however, doesn’t really establish the fact that there is a lot to prove otherwise. First, it is clearly evident that man still lives in a base reality and not a simulated reality because the latter is simply a creation of the former. Simulated reality came about as a result of base reality and the need for man to make his operations easier or more convenient. To this end, there is no way that a subset can grow into the main set at the expense of the main set that produced it. The only way that the simulated environment can survive or be built is by having the base reality in action. Computers are a product of base reality before they then create virtual reality.
Secondly, any creation of the simulated world, such as virtual reality, shall always remain unreal and it will be in the mind that it is indeed unreal. Virtual reality, for example, is one aspect of the simulated environment that has continued captivating so many people since it offers exactly what the human mind expects. The problem with expectation is that it is so often not in touch with reality. The house that is provided by simulation is not the house that one has in reality. As a result, computer simulation mostly offers idealistic and therefore, largely fake perceptions to please the mind. Looking at the world, such idealistic perceptions and occurrences do not exist. There is a great contrast between fake and the tangible reality. If life as is it, could be a computer simulated phenomenon, then so many things should have been ideal and perfect. That is hoever not the case since reality continues slapping real hard on people.
Also, the argument against the simulation hypothesis questions the feasibility of creating highly complex computer-generated simulations, as highlighted by Costanza-Chock's research on design justice. Skeptics argue that our understanding of reality may be limited by human constraints and our inability to comprehend existence (Saam 293) truly. Additionally, the speculative nature of the Self-Simulation hypothesis proposed by Irwin et al. may invite criticism (Irwin et al. 247). Considering these counterarguments reveals the doubts surrounding the simulation hypothesis and emphasizes the challenges in accepting that our reality is a product of computer simulation (Costanza-Chock; Irwin et al. 247; Saam 300).
The simulation hypothesis suggests that our reality is a computer-generated simulation. Nevertheless, scientific principles and theories, such as the Standard Model in physics, provide a comprehensive framework for comprehending the fundamental particles and forces that make up our non-simulated universe (Saam 309). These theories explain phenomena and indicate that our reality operates based on natural laws rather than artificial simulation. The gathering of empirical evidence further reinforces the case against the simulation hypothesis.
The constraints imposed by computational power present substantial obstacles in emulating consciousness. Although computing technology has progressed swiftly, replicating the intricate nature of human consciousness remains elusive. Consciousness encompasses enigmatic processes that are not entirely comprehended, such as subjective encounters, emotions, and self-awareness. The present capacity of computational systems needs to be improved to duplicate these facets within a simulated setting (Costanza-Chock). Consequently, the feasibility of a wholly simulated reality becomes questionable due to the inherent difficulties in simulating consciousness.
Moreover, alternative interpretations are available for phenomena commonly associated with simulations. Take, for example, the concept of the fine-tuning of the universe, which proposes that numerous physical constants and parameters are meticulously calibrated to permit the existence of life. This can be elucidated through the anthropic principle, whi...