An example of scientific crap I just don't understand... (Boltzmann brain paradox)

[Kodos]

Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boltzmann brain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Boltzmann brain is a hypothesized self-aware entity which arises due to random fluctuations out of a state of chaos. The idea is named for the physicist Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906), who advanced an idea that the known universe arose as a random fluctuation, similar to a process through which Boltzmann brains might arise.

Boltzmann brain paradox

Boltzmann brains are often referred to in the context of the "Boltzmann brain paradox" or "problem". They have also been referred to as "Boltzmann babies." [1]

The concept arises from the need to explain why we observe such a large degree of organization in the universe. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy in a closed universe will never decrease. We may think of the most likely state of the universe as one of high entropy, closer to uniform and without order. So why is the observed entropy so low?

Boltzmann proposed that we and our observed low-entropy world are a random fluctuation in a higher-entropy universe. Even in a near-equilibrium state, there will be stochastic fluctuations in the level of entropy. The most common fluctuations will be relatively small, resulting in only small amounts of organization, while larger fluctuations and their resulting greater levels of organization will be comparatively more rare. Large fluctuations would be almost inconceivably rare, but this can be explained by the enormous size of the universe and by the idea that if we are the results of a fluctuation, there is a "selection bias": We observe this very unlikely universe because the unlikely conditions are necessary for us to be here, an expression of the anthropic principle.

If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation, it is much less likely than a level of organization which only just creates stand-alone self-aware entities. For every universe with the level of organization we see, there should be an enormous number of lone Boltzmann brains floating around in unorganized environments. In an infinite universe, the number of self-aware brains that spontaneously randomly form out of the chaos complete with false memories of a life like ours, should vastly outnumber the real brains evolved from an inconceivably rare local fluctuation the size of the observable universe.

The Boltzmann brain paradox is that any observers (self-aware brains with memories like we have, which includes our brains) are therefore far more likely to be Boltzmann brains than real evolved brains, thereby at the same time also refuting the selection-bias argument.


Huh?

[Fidatelo]

That's some fucked up shit right there.

[Solecismic]

Sounds like a smart physics geek with a good sense of humor.

[DataKing]

Derp.

[Autumn]

Makes some sense to me. If you posit an infinite universe, over time anything, no matter how completely crazy, if possible, is guaranteed to happen. This makes for some crazy possibilities.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Makes some sense to me. If you posit an infinite universe, over time anything, no matter how completely crazy, if possible, is guaranteed to happen. This makes for some crazy possibilities.

That part makes sense. The leap is with the whole "this is all just imaginary" part.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

edit: i have to add this yt comment cuz it made me fucking snort:

"Copper, you're my very best friend."
"And you're mine too, Todd."
"CHAOS...REIGNS..."
"Wh...what was that, Todd?"

[Kodos]

Yeah. I have trouble with a spontaneous intelligent mind that also has false memories being more likely than actual intelligent life with actual memories.

[Kodos]

Anyhow, this all arose out of a Dilbert calendar entry from yesterday. Scott Adams believes in some prettty far out concepts.

[JediKooter]

Scott Adams is a douche. Though Dilbert is pretty funny.

[britrock88]

Applying probabilistic principles to things like this makes for some fun hypotheses.

[Shepp]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yeah. I have trouble with a spontaneous intelligent mind that also has false memories being more likely than actual intelligent life with actual memories.

I could say that in an infinite universe it is statistically possible that somewhere lead to spontaniously transmutes into gold. However, since our own knowledge of the universe is confined to what can be observed from earth my theory can't proven or disproven aside from mathmatic possibility.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Makes some sense to me. If you posit an infinite universe, over time anything, no matter how completely crazy, if possible, is guaranteed to happen. This makes for some crazy possibilities.

The Detroit Lions, Super Bowl ___ Champions!

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

The Detroit Lions, Super Bowl ___ Champions!

even in an infinite universe there are some constants...

[Autumn]

Yeah, let's not get too far out there.

Back to spontaneous fake minds.

[Autumn]

I think, if I get the idea, it's that a spontaneous mind with fake memories only requires itself to exist, whereas beings like us require an entire world and bodies and history. I guess a mind could exist in this very minimal physical state with a sort of hologram of history embedded in itself, without requiring anything more than that.

[Kodos]

Here is the comic strip.

[cartman]

Contains some NSFW lyrics:

[Wanderer]

[Exposes self as uber-geek]Wow, someone waved their towel at just the right time to get picked up by Zaphod, and let their imagination run away with them while playing with the Infinite Improbability Drive.[/Exposes self as uber-geek]

This thread should be "An example of mildly entertaining theoretical pseudo-scientific nonsense I just don't understand and shouldn't waste my time with."

IMO.

[Marc Vaughan]

I think its along the basis of ...

• You can run simulations on a computer
• Computers are constantly improving and evolving
• As Computers improve so do the simulations
• We can conjecture that eventually simulations will be as advanced as we our (ie. the same as our reality)
• There can only be one 'true' reality but at the point that computers can replicate them as simulations there would be numerous simulations.
• The probability is that our reality is not 'real' and is a simulation.

To me its not that surprising or funky really ...

Its very similar to the discussion I had internally with myself over whether I really have 'free will' as a kid* ....

ie. doesn't matter a monkeys whether you have free will or are a computer simulation of yourself, its your perspective on the situation that matters ... so get on with it.

*ignoring the usual religious side of things - our brains and bodies are purely chemical reactions, as such our thoughts and personalities are the by-product of those reactions ... as such they aren't real at all really, nor is free will - its all controlled by the laws of physics and if you had an advanced enough simulation you could in theory see what everyone will do and what would happen everywhere at any point in time .... funky or what

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I think its along the basis of ...

• You can run simulations on a computer
• Computers are constantly improving and evolving
• As Computers improve so do the simulations
• We can conjecture that eventually simulations will be as advanced as we our (ie. the same as our reality)
• There can only be one 'true' reality but at the point that computers can replicate them as simulations there would be numerous simulations.
• The probability is that our reality is not 'real' and is a simulation.

Kind of the opposite, actually. You're talking about this stemming from increasing amounts of order, which makes perfect sense. Saying that the same result stems from randomness - and more importantly, is more likely to stem from randomness - is definitely *not* the same thing.

Also, even if you grant the initial premise of their theory I don't think it holds. So there's a rare event (Boltzmann Brain) and a super-duper rare event (a pocket of organization that could spawn a large group of self-aware beings), fine. But one of those two is self-replicating. We have what, close to 7 billion self-aware beings on this planet right now, not counting everyone who has died already, right? I'll take the odds that randomness yielding self-aware intelligence (something never observed) is less than 10 billion times more likely than something we *have* observed to have happened...and we're only looking in a tiny corner!

The only way the idea holds is if the numbers are really that skewed (I'm thinking not) or I'm so self-aware and in my own head that I made up the other 6,999,999,999 of you.

To me its not that surprising or funky really ...

Its very similar to the discussion I had internally with myself over whether I really have 'free will' as a kid* ....

ie. doesn't matter a monkeys whether you have free will or are a computer simulation of yourself, its your perspective on the situation that matters ... so get on with it.

*ignoring the usual religious side of things - our brains and bodies are purely chemical reactions, as such our thoughts and personalities are the by-product of those reactions ... as such they aren't real at all really, nor is free will - its all controlled by the laws of physics and if you had an advanced enough simulation you could in theory see what everyone will do and what would happen everywhere at any point in time .... funky or what

Not buying this either - yes, we are chemical interactions, but you are ignoring quantum theory here. That is not deterministic, and would throw a major monkey wrench in your predictive modeling. That may not mean it is actually free will - it could be random - but assuming the quantum geeks aren't all out to lunch it definitely means that it's not deterministic. And yes, there are some who theorize that quantum randomness is actually the mechanism of free will. Dive into that and you have some interesting stuff going on.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Kind of the opposite, actually. You're talking about this stemming from increasing amounts of order, which makes perfect sense. Saying that the same result stems from randomness - and more importantly, is more likely to stem from randomness - is definitely *not* the same thing.

Ok so more along the lines of the internet becoming self-aware because of the amount of electrical connections to it being more than are present in the human brain?

ie. SkyNet anyone?

Not buying this either - yes, we are chemical interactions, but you are ignoring quantum theory here. That is not deterministic, and would throw a major monkey wrench in your predictive modeling. That may not mean it is actually free will - it could be random - but assuming the quantum geeks aren't all out to lunch it definitely means that it's not deterministic. And yes, there are some who theorize that quantum randomness is actually the mechanism of free will. Dive into that and you have some interesting stuff going on.

I'll readily admit I don't fully understand quantum theory - but I'd expect that it would prove to be determininistic, to me it almost has to be for it to be scientifically possible .... will have to make a point to look into it at some point, unfortunately my job and love of psychology books/junk sci-fi and fantasy limit my reading on the Physics front (I like physics ... I just LOVE psychology, which is one of the reasons I enjoy designing games tbh).

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Ok so more along the lines of the internet becoming self-aware because of the amount of electrical connections to it being more than are present in the human brain?

ie. SkyNet anyone?

More like given enough time & chaos, all the elements will shift around in such a way that they will combine to spontaneously form Deep Blue. Not a progression, but a single random event that is roughly as likely as it starting to rain diabetic penguins that are all doing impressions of Christopher Walken if he were Chinese.

I'll readily admit I don't fully understand quantum theory - but I'd expect that it would prove to be determininistic, to me it almost has to be for it to be scientifically possible .... will have to make a point to look into it at some point, unfortunately my job and love of psychology books/junk sci-fi and fantasy limit my reading on the Physics front (I like physics ... I just LOVE psychology, which is one of the reasons I enjoy designing games tbh).

I don't claim to understand quantum theory either, and from what I understand while large numbers of people have studied it and claim to understand it, there are probably not more than 100 people on the planet who really "get it."

One thing that I'm (almost) certain of is that it is decidedly *not* deterministic. It isn't that we don't have a way to determine where a quantum particle is. Rather, the particle enhabits multiple places simultaneously. That alone doesn't get us to free will, but if it's right it definitely gets you out of the prediction business, even if you literally knew everything.

Now, what if we had subconscious knowledge of quantum events would shake out? Or if we could choose which event to observe? Sounds weird, but 1) I can't imagine it being possible to do consciously, it's conceivable subconsciously; 2) it's only a little weirder than some cool things that other animals do that are pretty much incomprehensible (like a platypus's electrolocution); and 3) it would go a long way towards explaining how humans can do the things we do.

Do I buy that? It's definitly not probably, but it's far from impossible.

I think. WTF do I know?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

We have what, close to 7 billion self-aware beings on this planet right now, not counting everyone who has died already, right? I'll take the odds that randomness yielding self-aware intelligence (something never observed) is less than 10 billion times more likely than something we *have* observed to have happened...and we're only looking in a tiny corner!

but we have to ignore the fact that "we're only looking in a tiny corner" because of the anthropic principle. That doesn't speak at all to how likely intelligent beings are in general.

[GrantDawg]

USA! USA!

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Not a progression, but a single random event that is roughly as likely as it starting to rain diabetic penguins that are all doing impressions of Christopher Walken if he were Chinese.

I'd pay cold hard cash to see this.

[britrock88]

I had the same thought!