schele

Q1: If doing this could potentially lead to a failure that you can never recover from, would you stop them?
Q2: If helping them could potentially save your life in an unexpected way in the future, would you help them?
Q3: If not following this custom of bowing and worshiping ancestors could potentially bring you bad luck and death in a stinky ditch, would you bow?

Dialogue 1#

• "I know you're in a hurry, but don't rush, explain the problem clearly"
• "Don't you have that kind of fear? You are a brain in a vat, now in an unreliable false world, and outside there is a beautiful JK girl who likes you waiting for you to wake up. If you can't wake up, she will leave you..."
• "LOL, what would you do then?"
• "I don't know, but I'm worried that if I accept this world, I won't be able to wake up. I dare not do anything"
• [Laughter from others gradually fades, silence]
• "Is it a bit scary to talk about this at three in the morning? Tell the truth, are you all NPCs here to deceive me?"
• "How can we prove that we are not brains in a vat?"
• [Silence]
• "Damn, stop thinking about this, let's talk about our dark history"
• "..." silence
• "Is there a possibility that we are all brains in a vat?"

Analysis of the Questions#

• How can we prove that we are not brains in a vat?
• What is a brain in a vat? According to Wikipedia, the fundamental question is whether you are a brain trapped in a realistic illusion.
  • This illusion can be a world composed of electrical signals simulated by a supercomputer, or a false world created by magic, or something else. In short, it is a realistic illusion. Now there is a brain, or soul, or spirit trapped in it.
  • So, for this brain/soul/spirit, or the trapped individual, how can they determine whether they are trapped through their own intelligence and knowledge?
  • Finally, we need to determine whether we are the trapped individual.
• First, let's answer the last decomposed question, whether we are the trapped individual? Obviously, we might be.
  • All external information we receive is based on neural electrical signals. Based on current scientific knowledge, we cannot refute this conclusion. So yes, we have the conditions of the trapped individual, and we can even say that our bodies are the vat of the brain in a vat. We are trapped in our bodies. Under this explanation, all of us are trapped individuals.

  If you don't think your body is a vat, then you may be trapped. This explanation is subjective and constructed based on facts, not the facts themselves.

• So, with the knowledge that we have the foundation of a trapped individual, are we truly trapped?
  • Here, first, we need to avoid all information that deceives ourselves, so we need to identify those pieces of information that deceive ourselves. But how do we identify those pieces of information?
  • It's simple! We need to doubt everything! Doubt all the knowledge we have learned in the past, doubt all the common sense we have accepted in the past, doubt anything we firmly believe in, doubt everything people have told us, and even doubt our own thoughts, because we cannot guarantee that our current thoughts and memories are not controlled or even fabricated. In short, you need to doubt everything.
    • You need to list all your cognition and knowledge painstakingly, and then try to delete them one by one like deleting dependencies. Try to find contradictions or loopholes. Once you find them, then this world is fake! Wait! How do you know if these memories are real? Furthermore, how do you know if the logical reasoning and mathematical knowledge you have learned are real? Perhaps the logical laws of the real world are not divided into right or wrong at all!
    • After thinking, we can find that we cannot doubt the "axioms" we firmly believe in, which will plunge us into an infinite vortex of doubt. What's going on here?
  • So, in the end, you can intuitively find that this problem is placed outside of everything, and you cannot judge it through any internal methods.
    • Let's use an example to understand it:
      • "This is a sentence."
      • Obviously, it is a sentence, and its content is also a sentence. It is presented above. Now please tell me, what was the author thinking when writing this sentence?
      • You cannot be sure, because here you only see this sentence. In this sentence, its content does not provide any information about this question, that is, its internal does not have any method to judge this external question.
  • Finally, after a long period of thinking and torment of doubt, we find that this problem cannot be solved, and we cannot judge its truth or falsehood.

  At least not now

Dialogue 2#

• "Yes, we currently have no way to solve it, unless one day you get a clue about this external problem"
• "I just went to the bathroom, why did the painter start twitching and having a seizure on the ground?"
• "That's what happened after the mathematician stated the problem conclusion"
• "But having no solution is not something to be afraid of. In the end, whether the beautiful JK girl likes you or not is also unsolvable, right?"
• "Indeed, maybe you will see her if you go out and get hit by a big truck"
• "But it is also possible that you won't see her because you wake up on the carriage and hear 'you wake up'"

Expansion and Reflection on the Problem#

• In fact, the fact that the external problem has no solution is not frightening. It is precisely because it has no solution that any possible outcome exists, just like Schrödinger's cat, both dead and alive, contradicting each other.

  Of course, in reality, it is different from quantum mechanics. This is just an analogy.

  • The painter is afraid because of the loss caused by unknown actions, without realizing that by doing it, he may wake up and have a beautiful JK girl liking him, which is also a possible outcome.
• So, we can find that what we need to solve is not this unsolvable problem, but a bad thinking habit that should not exist: fear of possibilities
  • We fear bad outcomes due to unknowns and focus only on the bad outcomes, but for the future, we have both the possibility of success and the possibility of failure.

Dialogue 3#

• "Yes, that's how it is"
• "Why do I still feel so uncomfortable and can't help but think about what if I did something wrong?"
• "That's normal. Overcoming fear caused by instinct and habit is a hurdle that everyone needs to overcome. It is the basis for you to have free will"
• "By the way, this habit of fear of possibilities seems familiar. Have we seen it somewhere?"
• "I think it is a kind of shackle. Haven't you noticed that almost everyone here, including us, has it to some extent?"
• "In fact, from my observation, this phenomenon is particularly obvious in East Asia. Most people there seem to be accustomed to thinking in this way, so I usually call this thing Tartar lock"
• "What does this have to do with Tartars? I thought you were Polish?"
• "Because I have eaten Tartar steak, and it reminded me of this dish at that time. Don't you think it's barbaric?"
• "To be honest, I don't understand. Can you give another example? The beautiful JK girl is still too far away from me"
• "Have you heard of the suspicion chain theory in the Chinese science fiction novel 'The Three-Body Problem'?"
• "What is that?"
• It's something like this
  • The suspicion chain theory in "The Three-Body Problem" is an important concept in the trilogy created by Liu Cixin, mainly appearing in the second book "The Dark Forest". This theory describes the chain reaction of suspicion and counter-suspicion between intelligent civilizations in the universe, and is a thought model for explaining communication and contact between civilizations. The content of the suspicion chain theory is as follows:
  • Suspicion: Contact and communication between civilizations often come with suspicion. When one civilization discovers the existence of another civilization, it will start to have doubts, worrying about the other's intentions and actions, and whether the other is a potential threat.
  • Counter-suspicion: In order to dispel the potential threat from the other side, a civilization may take measures to counter-suspicion, that is, show a friendly and harmless attitude in an attempt to alleviate the other's doubts and reduce the other's hostile emotions.
  • Further suspicion: However, the other side may also have doubts about this counter-suspicion, thinking that the friendly attitude of the other side is a disguise, hiding a potential threat. As a result, the other side will have doubts again, and the cycle of suspicion and counter-suspicion continues.
  • Maintaining silence: In order to avoid further chain reactions of suspicion, intelligent civilizations tend to maintain silence and try to avoid contact and communication with other civilizations. The purpose of doing so is to avoid unnecessary suspicion and protect their own safety.
• "Why does it sound like a paranoid delusion going crazy? Are you saying that all the civilizations in this universe are mentally ill? LOL, this universe seems like a mental hospital"

Conclusion of the Problem#

• Now, let's answer the three questions mentioned at the beginning. You can find that they are all about external or future decisions. Good possibilities and bad possibilities coexist, after all, under this problem, you cannot obtain any other information, so you need to be a good Chen Daozi and make a choice, and then accept the result calmly.

written by schele