Lewis, Peter J. (2013) The Doomsday Argument and the Simulation Argument. [Preprint]

Microsoft Word Simulation_Argument_(rev).docx Download (87kB)

Abstract

The Doomsday Argument and the Simulation Argument share certain structural features, and hence are often discussed together (Bostrom 2003, Aranyosi 2004, Richmond 2008, Bostrom and Kulczycki 2011). Both are cases where reflecting on one’s location among a set of possibilities yields a counter-intuitive conclusion—in the first case that the end of humankind is closer than you initially thought, and in the second case that it is more likely than you initially thought that you are living in a computer simulation. Indeed, the two arguments do have some structural similarities. But there are also significant disanalogies between the two arguments, and I argue that these disanalogies mean that the Simulation Argument succeeds and the Doomsday Argument fails.

---

Export/Citation:

EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL

Social Networking:

Share |

---

Item Type:	Preprint
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID Lewis, Peter J. plewis@miami.edu
Keywords:	Doomsday argument, simulation argument, self-location, centered credence
Subjects:	General Issues > Confirmation/Induction
Depositing User:	Peter J. Lewis
Date Deposited:	17 Jan 2013 19:07
Last Modified:	17 Jan 2013 19:07
Item ID:	9528
Subjects:	General Issues > Confirmation/Induction
Date:	4 January 2013
URI:	https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/9528

Available Versions of this Item

• A note on the Simulation Argument. (deposited 17 Nov 2011 14:28)
  • The Doomsday Argument and the Simulation Argument. (deposited 27 Oct 2012 17:38)
    • The Doomsday Argument and the Simulation Argument. (deposited 17 Jan 2013 19:07) [Currently Displayed]

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item