To have a simulation all we need is an emulated brain AI and another AI that recreates the world the emulated brain sees to make the emulated brain believe what it sees is real. This adversarial AIs will be run many times while training.
By the time we manage to simulate a world and everyone on it this kind of single person simulations will have run so many times that the chances that we live in a world simulation or in base reality are minuscule by comparison.
I'm no longer [concerned that we are playing full dive vr](https://lemmy.ml/post/541901) since that seems more difficult to accomplish than this scenario, and therefore the chances are much smaller. Although I think the chances of it are still higher than world simulation or base reality.
If we could prove that 1) Simulations are possible, 2) we would survive and learn how to build them, and 3) Simulations would be built and run. Then the chances are high that we live in a simulation.
But I always thought why would we be simulating the whole history of the planet, we would be simulating from the present to the future to predict possible outcomes.
But if I had a computer capable of simulating just what I live sped up so that I could live many times in the simulation, I might do that after getting tired of superhero simulations, just to see what I do in those virtual lives. Let's assume we enter a simulation, removing our memory and making it as immersive as it can be, without any indicators that we are in the simulation.
Now let's suppose we live in a simulation, and get to the point at which we can simulate our lives in the simulation, and we enter another simulation, and that keeps happening simulation after simulation. How would we ever know, when we go back, if we are in base reality? We can't.
Now, knowing this I would never do that, and since I don't see any indicators that I'm on a simulation or have memories I shouldn't, I'm sure I haven't created the simulation. I could still have made the simulation warn me only before entering another simulation. Like "you are on simulation level 2 or 3, are you sure you want to enter a new simulation?"
The closer we get to full dive VR the more this scares me. We may not know what we look like in real life, or what our values are or even our specie. We might have gotten tired of simulating our specie and tried with another.
I see this scenario as much more likely than whole world simulation since the computational power required is much smaller. By the time we manage to simulate the whole world there will have been so many small simulations that the chances that we live in a whole world simulation are very small.
This thread caught my attention regarding the philosophy of science. I've read through the comments and discussions, but I want to move the arena to lemmy's philosophy community.
What's your opinion on the Scientific Method? Do your perceive its usefulness in the practical world? And are the flaws in Science the result of this method or the individual causations of the scientists themselves?
# The [Trolley Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) is a cyclical (iterative) experiment, showing how a change in the available information can affect the choices made.
To increase the emotional factor in the decision-making process, it is dramatized as a scene where a speeding car runs along a track, and the subject of the experiment (the "player") has to decide whether to divert it to one track or the other.
One of the options is technically easier because it only requires doing nothing. Without player interference, things will (khem, khem) take their course anyway.
# The Trolley Problem trap is built of three parts:
1. The experiment has an arbitrary number of cycles. In each consecutive cycle, the experimenter (equivalent to the game master "GM" / director) changes the scope and content of the information available to the player, trying to lead them from a situation of simple and obvious choice to a situation in which the choice becomes less and less obvious.
2. The player is also under increasing tension between the emotional aspect (*Track A: the last panda on the planet; Track B: a psychopathic rapist, the future father of the first feminist president of the Earth Nations Federation*) and the implicit expectation that they will solve the dilemma using rational thinking only. In reality, the only goal of the MG is to drive the player to a nervous breakdown due to an unbearable cognitive dilemma.
3. A subtle element of the trap is the time travel aspect. Each cycle (iteration) begins (in the story world – "in-game") at the same point – after a full reset. However, "out-game" the player is aware of previous cycles and the choices made in them. The human mind tends to become attached to its own decisions. The MG tries to push the player to change his or her decisions for less and less obvious reasons, which adds to the discomfort, as the mind wants to see itself as an "integrated" being, not an unstable one.
# How to get out of the trap (and use the experience to strengthen self-determination)?
This requires developing several important elements of awareness, which boil down to a readiness to make (and fix) mistakes.
**1. Acknowledging the information reset.**
When I receive new significant information regarding a previously made decision, it is as appropriate as possible to review that decision and possibly change it. I don't get attached to my previous choices, and it doesn't offend me if I back out of them.
**2. Accepting the limitations of rational thinking.**
Regardless of the completeness of the decision information, I am always ready for the fact that some things cannot be (especially under time pressure) compared rationally. I am ready to make some decisions (after exhausting other sensible ways) randomly or intuitively, and accept the consequences.
**3. Accepting that my knowledge and agency are incomplete – always and everywhere.**
I will never have full knowledge of the circumstances of my choices. I will never be fully capable – physically, mentally or emotionally – of making and executing every decision imaginable.
**To sum up, the trap of the trolley dilemma is to impose unrealistic and contradictory expectations on the player. And getting out of it requires acknowledging one's own limitations and making more direct contact with reality (bypassing even the most magnificent intermediaries).**
The plus side is that it doesn't require rearranging a vase full of glowing coals with your bare hands....
Consider two contradictory statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow"—and suppose that both are true. If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g., the assertion that "unicorns exist", by using the following argument:
We know that "Not all lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.
We know that "All lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.
Therefore, the two-part statement "All lemons are yellow or unicorns exist" must also be true, since the first part "All lemons are yellow" of the two-part statement is true (as this has been assumed).
However, since we know that "Not all lemons are yellow" (as this has been assumed), the first part is false, and hence the second part must be true to ensure the two-part statement to be true, i.e., unicorns exist.
‘The acceptance or rejection of abstract linguistic forms, just as the acceptance or rejection of any other linguistic forms in any branch of science, will finally be decided by their efficiency as instruments, the ratio of the results achieved to the amount and complexity of the efforts required.’ (Carnap)
The Simpson's paradox is a paradox in probability and statistics in which a trend appears in several groups of data but disappears or even reverses when the groups are combined. This result is often encountered in social-science and medical-science statistics and is particularly problematic when frequency data is unduly given causal interpretations.
Example: There exist treatment A and treatment B for kidney stones. Treatment A is more effective when used on small stones, and is also more effective when used on large stones, yet treatment B is more effective when considering all stones at the same time.
Different levels of overview: