Thought Experiment Simulator in New Weekly

Most academic subjects are easy to learn but hard to master, but philosophy is difficulteven to get started with. As the “science among the humanities,” serious philosophy is almost an insurmountable wall for ordinary people. Recently, however, a well-received game has tried to set up a fun ladder for climbing over this wall. A madman has tied five innocent people to a railway track. A train is rapidly approaching. At this moment, you are standing at a switch where two tracks diverge. In your handisalever shaped like a toilet plunger. You can choose to pull the lever, diverting the train to another track. This would save the five—but on that other track lies another innocent
person, also tied down. Do you save one, or save five? Do you intervene and make a moral decision, or let
things run their course? Is the life of five always worth more than the life of one? One choice about life and death extends into an infinite series of questions. This is the famous Trolley Problem, proposed in 1967 by British philosopher Philippa Foot. Because of the tension between moral duty and utilitarian trade-offs, it has no clear
resolution. The trolley problem has become not just a classic philosophical debate, but also one of
the internet’s most iconic memes. And now, it has inspired a video game.

Since its release on July 23, Thought Experiment Simulator has received more than 160 reviews on Steam and earned a “Very Positive” rating. Attentive players even see shades of the first-person adventure The Stanley Parable. Beyond the trolley problem, the game also adapts classics such as “Schrödinger’s Cat,”“The Allegory of the Cave,” “The Grandfather Paradox,” and “Buridan’s Ass,” among more than ten philosophical and ethical dilemmas.

In books, these thought experiments can be dry, difficult, and abstract. Games, by contrast, provide a natural medium for embodying these moral puzzles. In ThoughtExperiment Simulator, the trolley lever is physically placed in the player’s hand. Whether you pull it or do nothing, you must face the consequence of your decision. In another level, you help Sisyphus roll a boulder up a hill—only to see it tumbled own again, five times over. The boredom and frustration you feel mirrors his eternal fate. Paired with narration about finding happiness even in the absurdity of endless struggle, the player experiences his fate firsthand.

The “Tragedy of the Commons” level places players on a shared pasture. Each“+1” click increases livestock numbers and money earned, but unchecked greed causes the grass to vanish and animals to starve. Frantic micromanagement leads to inevitable collapse, vividly illustrating the dilemma.

In the “Allegory of the Cave” level, reality and illusion are layered. You think you’ve escaped the cave into the real world—only to realize that “reality” is itself just another stage prop. This resonates with how modern media constructs images and events, blending truth with illusion.

The “Veil of Ignorance” level lets players allocate resources while blind to their own social position. Do you gamble all on one outcome, or play it safe with equality? After earning 10 coins, you unlock a twist: the trolley problem under the veil. You could be the person tied to the track—or the one at the lever. The stakes escalate from wealth to life and death.

The creator, known as Luoqi, first had the idea after seeing a trolley problem meme online. Could philosophy memes be turned into a game?He began reading thought experiment literature, picking both famous and lesser-known cases that lent themselves to interactive design. Some, like the “Chinese Room” argument, were excluded for being too abstract to gamify. Reviews have called the game “witty and playful,” though some criticize it for presenting thought experiments without deep philosophical elaboration.

Luoqi openly admits this. He is a “complete outsider” to academic philosophy and doesn’t claim to extend the field’s theories—only to frame them as fun, interactive experiences. In his view, these thought experiments have already been debated many times by others. As a “philosophy outsider,” he feels unqualified to extend them in any academic sense: “All I can do, as a game developer, is preserve and recreate the framework of these thought experiments while making them more fun. That’s the extent of what I can do.”

When exploring philosophy, following established rules and order may be safe. But sometimes breaking convention can bring unexpected rewards. And games, precisely, are a medium that can offer players possibilities beyond the ordinary.In the “Sorites Paradox” stage, the tutorial instructs players to use the arrow keys to control a dinosaur and move rightward to collect diamonds. However, if you press left, you unexpectedly enter a secret room and unlock an achievement.

We may never fully understand the original works of Rousseau or Kant, but that doesn’t prevent us from thinking in our own way. An imperfect philosophy game is still a meaningful attempt to explore philosophy through play. A simulated conversation with Karl Marx in the game already provides the answer: “That’s why we need this kind of philosophical thinking. It may not be perfect, but it can guide us toward fairness.”

“This is a stupid game,” Thought Experiment Simulator describes itself on Steam. Players quickly come to understand this description. Beyond its core choices, the game packs its thought experiment scenarios with humor, absurdity, and even baffling elements that leave players scratching their heads. For example, in the Trolley Problem section, the dilemma extends to silly choices:pineapple pizza versus plain pizza (save the plain one and Italians will thank you), Dragon versus unicorn, time machine versus space machine, and more. In the Sisyphus section, besides pushing the boulder, players can also knock off the ever-changing weird hats on Sisyphus’ head. Choosing between pineapple pizza and plain pizza, knocking off Sisyphus’ hats, or sending Mickey Mouse toward the Ship of Theseus may seem utterly meaningless, with no connection to philosophy’s core.

So it’s no surprise that stuffing so many nonsensical elements into a philosophy game leaves some players puzzled. But in fact, without these elements, the game might never have received so much praise. In April 2024, a demo of Thought Experiment Simulator launched on Steam. According to the developer Luoqi, this demo was very different from the final product—many absurd touches were missing, and there was little feedback for players.

Compared to today’s “Very Positive” rating, the demo received lukewarm to negative comments at the time, including blunt criticisms like “barely worth a dollar” or “an insult to players.” Luoqi explains that in the demo he simply tried to recreate thought experimentsinteractively: “But the result was really boring. If it was just recreating, then the Infinite Monkey problem was just typing, and Sisyphus was just pushing a boulder.” During the interview, he repeatedly emphasized terms like “meaningful gameplay” and“player feedback.” In his view, if players merely make choices with no consequences,then it’s meaningless to them. What players want is the feedback after the choice: “In academic game design theory, this is called ‘meaningful choice.’”

Luoqi graduated from NYU’s game design program, where “meaningful choice” is considered one of the most important concepts. “Any fun game has meaningful choices,” he notes. With player feedback, the trolley problem section evolved from a simple multiple-choice question into an interactive sequence with consequences. “For example, at first it was just a binary between two pizzas. Later I changed it so that in the next round, players could see Italians reacting to their choice. Or if you chose tocrush the alien, then in the following round their spaceship would abduct the trolley.” Luoqi explained to New Weekly. “Even if it’s just one more picture, it makes players realize their choices matter.

When the demo first came out, the famous streamer Xiaoyao Sanren on BiliBili played it live. “He was totally confused, because the early demo really wasn’t good,” Luoqi recalls. “But when the UFO suddenly abducted the trolley in the trolley problem stage, he was shocked, and the chat exploded with laughter. At that moment I suddenly realized whatthe game should be.” Beyond feedback, meme potential and shareability were also part of his design considerations. “If you just do the standard trolley options, it isn’t engaging. But if you add pineapple pizza, that’s a perfect philosophy meme,” he said. At the same time, he didn’t want to strip the experiments of their original meaning. The frameworks are the core, while the absurd touches are the highlights. Together they create those moments of delight that hook players.He believes the “Sisyphus’ Hat”—which many players find baffling—is actually the game’s stroke of genius. Camus interpreted Sisyphus’ endless labor as a kind of struggle, and within that struggle, Sisyphus is happy. Compare this to human life: each of us is a Sisyphus, endlessly repeating our routines, pushing our own stones. “So we must imagine Sisyphus happy—because if he isn’t happy, then neither are we,” said Luoqi. The hat, he explains, is the concrete expression of that happiness.

“The ‘Sisyphus’ Hat’ design was meant so that each time you push the boulder, you can find something new. Those little new things might give players more motivation to keep pushing.” He adds: “In this world, a lot of people feel unhappy in their everyday lives. But precisely because people can find happiness within unhappiness, they can keep living.” Perhaps the message the game wants to convey lies hidden in that small hat: before the mountain of endless toil that is life, we may find not only absurd wine and cold bread, but also, thanks to a goofy hat, the expectation and will to live on and push forward once more.