I've played around with moving perspectives. Your brain adapts remarkably quickly to it, in general. It trips up at some bits for a lot longer however.
A few years back, I built a rig to view yourself in the 3rd person (view from above and behind your head). It was good fun. I could adapt to the change in about 5-10 seconds, once I was used to it. Forward collision detection was completely screwed. My brain would default to "normal" without conscious overriding.
As a parent, an extra layer of protection would be a positive. Balancing everything, and not leaving holes is hard enough, and I've yet to deal with the teenage phase.
As the same time, as a Netizen, the risk of abuse to datamine me is FAR too great.
The only way I would accept it is via zero knowledge proof type tokens. I can prove I am of age, but nothing more about me can be determined by any party.
The current laws seem aimed at using "protect the children" to remove anonymity from the web, and are a data miner's wet dream.
There's also the 28 hour day one https://xkcd.com/320/
The energy to spontaneously create a planet is vastly more than a brain. Then again, with the weird maths of infinities, it might play out.
Though to recreate the full illusion would require something closer to the big bang itself.
It's well into the "here he dragons" realms of science however. Speculating well beyond reliable evidence.
Our best ideas on the big bang put the universe as huge, but finite in space. (Way bigger than the observable universe) The question is time. If time is infinite then Boltzmann brains win.
Matter has a finite life, energy differentials run out. Stars run out of fuel. Black holes evaporate. Even protons eventually fall apart to energy. Then there is endless emptiness.
That emptiness would be finite in space, but infinite in time. Without that last boundary, weird things happen to maths.
When the results are inseparable, then complexity is the only element, it doesn't prove anything, but it does bias.
Also, most gods don't fall into this debate. Most gods would be quite happy interfering. This is (in principle) distinguishable from the null. It was aimed primarily at the simulation hypothesis. A perfect simulation is indistinguishable from a base reality.
It's also a local maxima trap. To shift to chewing, they would have to change both bite behaviour, and teeth structure. The intermediate stage is a lot worse than either style.
Even if chewing was the better option, it's inaccessible from the crocs current method.
If things are not all equal, then we can slice off a section of the axiom, and start dissecting it, via science. The axiom only applies if things are exactly equal.
E.g. Gravity wave detectors have found oddities, just above the noise floor. These are likely equipment artifacts. They are also consistent with us being in a simulation, and us touching close to the resolution limit. If true (quite unlikely) then it would prove the axiom false.
The logic is that the universe of big bang matter has a limited lifespan. This sets a hard limit on the number of humans via "normal" means.
Boltzmann brains are due to a quirk of quantum mechanics. Matter can come into existence spontaneously. The rate is proportional to the amount (technically the energy content). Given enough time and space, something that would fit the definition of human could spontaneously appear. The odds of this are unbelievably long, but, so long as it's finitely large, in a true infinite universe it will happen an infinite number of times. It's a bit of infinity Vs very large number weirdness.
End result is that there will be a large but finite number of "normal" humans, but an infinite number of Boltzmann brain humans. Therefore, the chances of being an actual "normal" human is effectively infinitesimal.
Agreed about it not mattering, day to day. It's one of those things that is of interest to theoretical physicists, since it might tell us something interesting about the nature of our universe.
You say that, but, if the universe has an infinite lifespan (as current models suggest) then we would almost certainly be Boltzmann brains. (There would be an infinite amount of Boltzmann brains, but only a finite number of humans)
I personally believe I am not, and the universe actually exists, rather than a sensory/memory ghost.
It's useful to understand the mechanisms, it helps you to understand both what it can do, and its limitations. E.g. they can only mirror the parts they see or talk about. The parts of yourself that you hide away will be lost from their imperfect model.
For more info, it generally falls under "mirror neurons". They help us empathise with others. E.g. when we smile, certain mirror neurons start firing. When we see someone smile, the same ones fire. We feel the appropriate emotions because of this. They also fire preemptively. E.g. when you hear your mother yelling about the mess, even though you've lived alone for a decade.
It's an assumption, not an extrapolation. Assumptions, without evidence are beliefs.
We assume several unprovable axioms to allow science to function. A lot of work has also been done to collapse them down to the core minimum. What is left is still built on belief.
The fact that the results are useful back validates those beliefs. It doesn't prove them however.
Belief in a null is a lot more reasonable than belief in something so powerful it can pretend to be a null.
Belief that I am not in a Truman show like environment is a lot more reasonable (without evidence) than belief that I am in a Truman show, and they are doing a perfect job.
That doesn't mean I don't try disproving the null hypothesis.
I think consciousness is more than just our neurons, it's an active waveform riding and guided by them.
Unfortunately, I don't think it survives death. Without the underlying structure, it collapses to noise.
Interestingly, our brains have special circuits, design to emulate others. In effect, our consciousness imprints onto theirs. It's not the full pattern, and imperfect, but a part of us lives on in the consciousness of everyone who knows us.
Like ripples in a pond. The water of the initial wave is no longer involved, but it has passed to others.
2 words, cycling shorts.
They leave very little to the imagination...
Fully agreed. It's worth noting that mounting it to the side would likely also work fine. Particularly if the person is already blind. That way it doesn't disrupt the view of facial expressions.