I don't know. The question of self is a hard one. I would not, because I would like my consciousness, as in the one that I control (a little recursive, but you get the point) to be alive, and because that other me is another distinct set of atoms, and therefore my neurons don't control him. So I would say no
You're right, that was one of the erroneous assumptions I made. The problem with that is that there are an infinite number of permutations of possible universes. Even if only a small fraction of them are habitable, and a small fraction of those are conducive to intelligent life, we still have the multiplying by infinity issue. I don't know how valid using infinity in an equation is though, because when there are two infinities it breaks down. For example, if they're are an infinite amount of dogs in New York, and 10% of dogs are terriers, technically the probability of the next dog you see being a terrier is equal to that of any other dog. That again simply doesn't make sense to me
Random question that just occurred to me: would you be fine if an exact copy was made of you (ignore quantum mechanics for now), and the old you was killed off?
On your argument, there is little need to flawlessly compute the universe. If a civilization sees that their laws are inconsistent with their observations, then they will change their laws to reflect their observations. Because there is no way to conclusively prove your laws are correct, it is impossible for a simulation to state that "Our laws are correct, therefore there is a flaw in the universe". Furthermore, on the probability that our ancestors have obtained the computing power of running a simulation:
An estimate for the power of a (non-quantum) planet sized computer is 10^42 (R. J. Bradbury, “Matrioshka Brains.”) operation per second. Its hard to pin down how many atoms there are in the universe, but lets put it at around 10^80, and with 128 bits needed to hold each coordinate, to the degree of one pm, and another for its movement, that puts it at around 10^83 operations to run a simulation.
So at first it looks impractical to compute a universe, but this computer need to perform its operations in a seconds time. (Practical value of a computer that runs infinitely slowly), it can compute its values infinitely slowly. And so, no matter the size of the universe, a computer can simulate it. And because it can compute its values infinitely slowly, it can compute an infinite number of universes.
So in conclusion, there is a very low probability that a civilization evolves to the point where it can simulate a universe, and the motives are also dubious. But, because of that fact that if it does, there is no upper bound to the number of universes the civilization can simulate, and so we are almost certainly in a simulated universe, because the probability of us being in a simulated universe is determined by n/p, where p is the probability of a universe being simulated, and n is the number of universes being simulated, that ends up being a probability of infinity, and so we are most likely part of a simulated universe.
That's really interesting; maybe we need a new name for the (convoluted) modern Socratic method?
That's why I think that the basic concept of "building block" schooling works-you essentially keep the distance constant, but teach them ever more challenging topics. The one time where there is a large gap is in the introduction of completely new ideas or subjects. For example, in physics when people first learn of general relativity there is a large inferential distance, which is very hard to remedy.
Interestingly, the one time that I find that the modern Socratic method works is math. Because it is so much more helpful in math to have an innate understanding of the subjects, you have to be able to explain why an equation or theorem works/is true. So when time permits, guiding them with questions is very helpful, as figuring something out sticks in your mind more than having it on a board.
You're right, I really wasn't thinking of a specific method of comparison, rather I was just kind of ranting on how much I dislike it. Of the teaching methods we have: Lecturing- Above average students might be bored if the teacher is telling them information they already knew, but it many times has just a blanket boredom effect
Demonstrating- Even if certain students already know information, can still be interesting if they try to extend their thinking on the demonstration. The opposite of a lecture, many times has a blanket engaging effect
Socratic- See above post So really, there is no silver bullet, only what you say of devoting attention to specific subsets of class. Apart from the limited use cases of a demonstration, the only way to maximize what part of the class is interested is by catering to the largest subset
On the Socratic method; I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about that or could write an article on the benefits and consequences of it. From what I see is that the above average students get frustrated when the jump to conclusions faster than the teachers guide the class to them, and the below average students who consistently aren't understanding the questions, with the Socratic method really only working for the average students (this scale though can be re-calibrated, for example if the teacher caters the to the below average students, now the average students are also frustrated, and vice versa.)
The thing about that is, is that not everyone is donating at the same time, so that they can see the expected value change.