Notes

1. The first assumption based on a modified version of the original simulation argument by Nick Bostrom is: It is possible to simulate consciousness. 

The second assumption is: Technological progress will not stop anytime soon.

The third assumption is:

The fourth assumption is:

The fifth assumption is: 

2. The assumption of being able to simulate consciousness is an intriguing concept that immediately caught my attention. One factor that makes the overall idea of us currently living in a simulation plausible is the possibility of us currently living in a simulation. This is plausible because we cannot prove that we are not currently living in a predetermined-based reality, due to the example given in the beginning of the video: "You're body might feel like it's filled with bubbly things, but it might be empty, until you open it." (Kurzgesagt 1:50) This example provides context of the concept that you cannot entirely prove that something is truthful without having seen it first-hand. The key word here is plausible, being that in order to prove something such as what is inside your body is actually there, it would require genuinely seeing into your own body, according to this assumption. The limitations with that assumption and mindset would be significant, in that there is no direct support to back up this idea, which is what our society typically deems as a requirement in order to prove something. I recognize the goal with this assignment, and find the idea that we're living in a simulation as certainly plausible, but not likely. Obviously this idea is not a fact, but what it is is a great tool to expand the concept of our current reality, and allow ourselves to consider a multitude of possibilities. Considering the idea that a computer could eventually created that could simulate the human brain is incredible, and strikes me as another idea that is certainly plausible. The increasing development of technology and computers seems to be exponential, in that it continues to make massive strides decade-to-decade. Saying that this computer will not be able to handle trillions of concurrent operations per second is a similar concept to the idea that we cannot entirely prove that our bodies aren't empty unless we see inside of them. The assumption that technological progress will not stop anytime soon strikes me as significantly more likely to take place, in comparison to finding out that we've been living in a simulation. An example of never ending evolution within technology such as The Matrioshka Brain, provides an engaging idea of what could potentially be apart of our technological future. Of course this is essentially possible, strictly because I cannot say that it is impossible, and with how technology was evolved in the past century, it wouldn't surprise me if something like The Matrioshka Brain was eventually created hundreds of years from now. 

3. I personally believe the idea of us living in a simulation is quite interesting, and fun to consider. While I don't think it'd be an efficient use of someone's time to continually spend hundreds of hours pondering and researching this idea, I can still understand why someone would do so.