That’s a good point! I feel it ultimately comes down to the motive of the simulator in this assumed power asymmetry—is the intention for the simulatees to work out that they’re in a simulation? In that case, the reset function is probably a protective measure for them specifically e.g. if they’re on the verge of self annihilation. Or maybe it’s to protect them from the truth for their own sanity? Or if the simulator is malevolent, then a reset could exist if the situation is too peaceful or that the simulated find the mechanism to escape their current reality. In any case, the mechanism’s presence would be expected.
Suzie. EXE
Karma: −18
The Save State Paradox: A new question for the construct of reality in a simulated world
Consider this thought experiment—in a simulated world (if we do indeed currently live in one), how could we detect an event similar to a state “reset”? Such events could be triggered for existential safety reasons or one unbeknownst to us? If this was the case, how would we become aware of such occurrences if we were reverted to a time before the execution; affecting memories, physical states and environmental continuity? Imagine if seemingly inexplicable concepts like Deja Vu and the Mandela Effect could be explained away with such a theory.
Let’s use an equation (aided by my custom GPT, Strawberry) to illustrate this:
D=R×(1−A)×E×P×S
Where D = the detection of the save state
R = the rate of hypothesised resets occurring in the simulation
A = the probability of the ability of the simulation to carry this out effectively (memory alteration or time travel)
E = external evidence that remains post-reset such as anomalies and unexplained phenomena
P= the probability that observers could spot/ measure these anomalies
S = the stability of the simulation’s parameters such as space/time metrics, physical laws
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts and how this could be fleshed out further! How might we apply this thought experiment or model to examine the nature of our reality? What other tools could be used to uncover evidence of a reset?
Thank you for the clarification! That does seem plausible—it’s particularly interesting to read his perspective as one involved in both Science Fiction and Academia (imaginative foresight with scientific grounding)
Epistemic Fluidity: A Mediation of What We Know and Believe
In the age of misinformation, “post-truth,” and with a major election on the horizon in a certain part of the world, there’s an increasing need for tools that help us apply rigorous evaluation to our mental models. This is what I call Epistemic Fluidity—a method that mediates between what we know and believe, with the flexibility to adjust these beliefs when necessary.
By being aware of how our values have been shaped—through upbringing, experience, and emotion—we can examine our core beliefs and potentially shift them dynamically in response to new information. While this process often brings both existential and social friction (since core values are closely tied to our identity and the social groups we belong to), I believe that engaging in this exercise, uncomfortable as it may be, can offer us the flexibility to critically evaluate information before our limbic system quickly reacts to propaganda designed to exploit these emotional triggers.
Introducing: Existential Jenga
Here’s a rough exercise I propose as a starting point:
Select a “Block”: Choose a belief that you hold, ideally one where you’re aware of its origin. As you grow more comfortable, you can start selecting beliefs that are more central to your identity.
Assess the Block: Gently slide the belief out of its place in your mental model. From this new vantage point, how does the overall construct look? Has your mental model—the block tower—changed significantly? Does it feel stronger or more unstable without this belief in place?
Place or Discard: Decide what to do with the belief. Would you place the block back on top, recognizing it as newly examined, or would you discard it altogether? Like in Jenga, your mental structure will look different after this action, but its integrity remains. With this new understanding, determine the best place for this belief—or if it should be set aside.
(Disclaimer: I’m not based in the US, nor do I feel an affinity for any particular party currently running.)
Any feedback or further discussion would be much appreciated!