This led Columbia University astronomer David Kipping to run his own numbers using BostromвЂ™s argument as a guide. I discuss some consequences of this result.вЂќД«ostromвЂ™s claim is both philosophically and probabilistically bold, with considered outcomes he has placed almost on a pure binary. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we shall one day become posthumans who run ancestorвЂђsimulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. ItвЂ™s worth reading BostromвЂ™s brief abstract in full: вЂњI argue that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to become extinct before reaching a вЂposthumanвЂ™ stage (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of its evolutionary history (or variations thereof) (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. Scientific American cites the landmark 2003 paper вЂњAre We Living in a Computer Simulation?вЂќ by philosopher Nick Bostrom. The 50/50 probability is rounded from a calculation whose outcome is more like 50.22222 to 49.77778. The coin flip depends a great deal on science we may uncover in the near future, they say. If real life in 2020 seems like just too much, take comfort in some breaking news: scientists say odds are even that weвЂ™re living in a simulation. The weighted Bayesian calculation has a lot of assumptions built in.Because the question is so big, many experts approach it from very different angles.Scientists and philosophers meet at the bleeding edge of simulation theory.