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: Advanced civilizations don't destroy themselves. 

The fourth assumption is: Super advanced civilizations want to run simulations. 

The fifth assumption is: If there are a lot of simulations, you are probably inside a simulation. 

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. The assumption that in the future advanced civilizations won't destroy themselves hinges on the concept of humanity ultimately not killing themselves is obvious, but remains truthful. Believing that humans were ultimately created with the idea in mind that we will eventually destroy each other is a chilling concept, but I definitely understand what the video was attempting to portray, as it certainly contributes to to the idea that it is possible we're living in a simulation. The limitation of this assumption is rooted in the belief that if all civilizations were simultaneously as advanced as we'd like to believe, they would not kill each other, because this video would not have been created. The assumption made that advanced civilizations will not destroy each other stems from believing that they will act rationally, and likely focus on continually evolving, rather than destruction or war. These advanced simulations also might not have the destruction as a priority, and rather are focused on things similar to what has gotten them to becoming an advanced civilization. The assumption that super advanced civilizations would want to run simulations makes me think back to the issue that was going on at the Manchester Art Gallery, due to the gallery having specific priorities that outweighed the reaction that the controversial pieces of artwork had and how they could've done this with purposeful intention in order to promote said artwork, similar to how a super advanced civilization would want to experiment alternate outcomes continually for revolutionary or entertainment purposes. The assumption that if we are in a simulation, then there likely are a plethora of simulations taking place, is a reasonable assumption. If we genuinely were living inside of a simulation, why would we be the only special beings in the world to be doing so? This would insinuate that there would only be one advanced civilization currently running a simulation. The limitations of believing that we are truly living in a simulation and if so then millions of other simulations would exist as well, leads us to the unfortunate realization that what we have always perceived as reality, may not be so. 

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.