>>14038532The original simulation argument is based on a logical deduction that one of the following must be true:
1) We are almost certainly living in a simulation
2) Something will stop us from developing lifelike simulations
It is then conjectured that lifelike simulations are inevitable from a purely technological standpoint, so #2 would imply that humanity will destroy itself first, so the final conclusion is that one of the following must be true:
1) We are almost certainly living in a simulation
2) Humanity will destroy itself before it manages to develop lifelike simulations
I've established some obvious faults with that argument, that leave us with the following options:
1) We are almost certainly living in a simulation
2) Humanity will destroy itself before it manages to develop lifelike simulations
3) Humanity will never bother to deploy a massive numbers of uselessly slow simulations
