Spiritual Evidence Map
← Sources
Journal articleprimarycontextVerified

Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?

Nick Bostrom · 2003 · Philosophical Quarterly, 53(211), 243–255

Spiritual Evidence Map/Last updated May 10, 2026/Claims v1.0.0-provisional/Sources v1.0.0/Scores provisional
Citation dossier

This source is used as context evidence across 1 linked claim and 3 related evidence hubs. Its citation record is marked verified; that verifies the source trail, not the truth of any linked claim.

Source type
Journal article
Map role
context
Claim links
1
Direct access
Recorded

Summary

Bostrom's original simulation-argument paper, presenting the trilemma between simulator extinction, lack of interest, and our living in a simulation.

How this source is used on the map

The canonical primary source for the simulation hypothesis as a philosophical argument.

Citation record

Authors
Nick Bostrom
Year
2003
Publication
Philosophical Quarterly, 53(211), 243–255
Source type
Journal article
Map role
context
Credibility level
primary
Citation status
Verified
DOI
Not recorded
PubMed
Not recorded
PDF
Not recorded
Original source →

Linked claims

Evidence score 3/10
Simulation Theory

Nick Bostrom's 2003 trilemma: civilizations don't reach the simulation stage, or don't run simulations, or we are almost certainly in one. The argument is rigorous; whether any horn is true is empirically open.

Related evidence hubs

Topic hub
Reality & Time

Physics-adjacent worldviews — block universe, many-worlds, simulation, free will.

Evidence pillar
Reality & time models

Block universe, presentism, eternalism, emergent time.

Evidence pillar
Physics-adjacent worldview theories

Many-worlds, simulation, mathematical universe.

Related sources

Philosophy reference · context
Fine-Tuning

Frames the anthropic / multiverse / design debate that simulation, mathematical-universe, and theism claims all engage with.

Secondary summary · context
Simulation hypothesis

Companion to Bostrom's original paper; useful for reception history and for distinguishing the formal argument from looser simulation speculation.