I think you’re saying that with LHC you could possible attain more certainty about latent risk.
Maybe? It’s more like, for either case, if you’re actually living through it and not just in a toy example, you can investigate the actual evidence available in more detail and update on that, instead of just using the bare prior probabilities. And it’s conceivable that investigation yields evidence that is most easily explained by some kind of simulation / probability pumping / other weird anthropics explanation—even if I can’t write down a formal and generalizable theory about it, I can imagine observing evidence that convinces me pretty strongly I’m e.g. in some weird probability-pumped universe, fictional story, simulation, etc.
To be clear, I don’t think observing surface-level reports of a few repeated mechanical failures, or living through one cold war is enough to start updating towards these hypotheses meaningfully, and I think the way you propose updating under either SSA or SIA in the examples you give is reasonable. It’s just that, if there were enough failures, and then I took the time to actually investigate them, and the investigation turned up (a priori very unlikely) evidence that the failures happened for reasons that looked very suspicious / strange, when considered in aggregate, I might start to reconsider...
Maybe? It’s more like, for either case, if you’re actually living through it and not just in a toy example, you can investigate the actual evidence available in more detail and update on that, instead of just using the bare prior probabilities. And it’s conceivable that investigation yields evidence that is most easily explained by some kind of simulation / probability pumping / other weird anthropics explanation—even if I can’t write down a formal and generalizable theory about it, I can imagine observing evidence that convinces me pretty strongly I’m e.g. in some weird probability-pumped universe, fictional story, simulation, etc.
To be clear, I don’t think observing surface-level reports of a few repeated mechanical failures, or living through one cold war is enough to start updating towards these hypotheses meaningfully, and I think the way you propose updating under either SSA or SIA in the examples you give is reasonable. It’s just that, if there were enough failures, and then I took the time to actually investigate them, and the investigation turned up (a priori very unlikely) evidence that the failures happened for reasons that looked very suspicious / strange, when considered in aggregate, I might start to reconsider...