Boltzmann brain (split from 137 the magic of the fine structure constant)

[Boltzmannbrain]

You may also be interested in reading about the Boltzmann Brain.  Matt O'Dowd does a good summary of it.

 

[Boltzmannbrain]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

What has this to do with the fine structure constant?

I felt we were in fringe-theory territory to explain away fine-tuning mysteries.  No matter how distasteful, everything should be considered.

 

[joigus]

Obviously he means quark. 

 

And we're not Boltzmann brains. Structure formation in our world is not to do with fluctuations, obviously. The contents of my mind come from events in the past. It obviously cannot be the case that the contents of my mind, and my feeling of them having to do with events in the past both!!! arise from thermal fluctuations.

And not everything should be considered. Silly ideas don't have to be considered, when they're silly for obvious reasons.

[Boltzmannbrain]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Obviously he means quark. 

 

And we're not Boltzmann brains. Structure formation in our world is not to do with fluctuations, obviously. The contents of my mind come from events in the past. It obviously cannot be the case that the contents of my mind, and my feeling of them having to do with events in the past both!!! arise from thermal fluctuations.

And not everything should be considered. Silly ideas don't have to be considered, when they're silly for obvious reasons.

I get the feeling that you think I am arguing for a Boltzmann Brain.  I'm absolutely not.  Moreover, you did not give a very convincing reason why a Boltzmann Brain is not the answer.  The BB would explain everything that you mentioned.  The structure out there, would actually be just your BB.  Everything including your memories, conclusions, arguments, etc. would only exist for as long as the brain exists.  It is like proving solipsism false; it is very hard to do so. 

When we are this far down the rabbit hole trying to explain away constants, laws etc. and how they came to be, a Boltzmann Brain may be a lot less crazy than the actual answer.  

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

I felt we were in fringe-theory territory to explain away fine-tuning mysteries

You don’t have to explain away fringe theory stuff. The fringe theory claimants need to provide evidence. They own the burden of proof. And a fringe theory is never a viable response for an argument, be it mainstream or fringe.

[joigus]

7 hours ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

I get the feeling that you think I am arguing for a Boltzmann Brain.  I'm absolutely not.  Moreover, you did not give a very convincing reason why a Boltzmann Brain is not the answer.  The BB would explain everything that you mentioned.  The structure out there, would actually be just your BB.  Everything including your memories, conclusions, arguments, etc. would only exist for as long as the brain exists.  It is like proving solipsism false; it is very hard to do so. 

If by "not very convincing" you mean "not convincing you", I would agree instantly.

You have proven to be... How should I put it... very resilient to solidly understanding many ideas involving infinity, or perhaps very stubborn in your own views about them.

Here's a piece of conversation between a student and Susskind about Boltzmann brains, elaborating on what they would be and why they wouldn't explain the world as wee see it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hh0lJZbUfo&t=1680s

Upon the student stubbornly insisting on them and their properties, he ends at about t=1800s,

"Don't worry about it: This is not the right theory of Nature."

The reason is a world of Boltzmann brains spontaneously popping out of a thermally-dead universe would not bring about the correlations we see in the real world. Comments concerning George Washington and the cherry tree.

 

 

[Boltzmannbrain]

9 hours ago, joigus said:

If by "not very convincing" you mean "not convincing you", I would agree instantly.

You have proven to be... How should I put it... very resilient to solidly understanding many ideas involving infinity, or perhaps very stubborn in your own views about them.

Here's a piece of conversation between a student and Susskind about Boltzmann brains, elaborating on what they would be and why they wouldn't explain the world as wee see it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hh0lJZbUfo&t=1680s

Upon the student stubbornly insisting on them and their properties, he ends at about t=1800s,

"Don't worry about it: This is not the right theory of Nature."

The reason is a world of Boltzmann brains spontaneously popping out of a thermally-dead universe would not bring about the correlations we see in the real world. Comments concerning George Washington and the cherry tree.

I take it you did not read what I said carefully enough.  

What if your Boltzmann Brain only lasted for a few seconds?  How would you know that the universe/structure actually exists, and are not just false memories?  I am not actually asking this question to get a response.  I am just saying that your argument against a BB was not convincing.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

I take it you did not read what I said carefully enough.  

What if your Boltzmann Brain only lasted for a few seconds?  How would you know that the universe/structure actually exists, and are not just false memories?  I am not actually asking this question to get a response.  I am just saying that your argument against a BB was not convincing.

I hope my brain lasts for something more than a few seconds yet. It remains to be seen if my brain's attention to your arguments will last that long --last time we discussed something I didn't find it very promising.

Again (because you missed it the first time): A world made up of false, fluctuation-generated, memories would not display correlations like those manifest when I watch my family album, legal documents, history books, etc, and compare them to my sensorial memories. Have you actually listened to Susskind's explanation? His point about Boltzmann's wife? You could have 1st-order coincidences, so to speak. Much more unlikely would be to have 2nd-order. Let alone 3rd, 4th, and apparently unlimited in the order or depth --if you will--. This is not a world of Boltzmann brains, only too obviously. This is a world in which what I see has been seen by many other 'processes' out there. You cannot simulate that with a thermal fluctuation.

[Boltzmannbrain]

25 minutes ago, joigus said:

I hope my brain lasts for something more than a few seconds yet. It remains to be seen if my brain's attention to your arguments will last that long --last time we discussed something I didn't find it very promising.

Again (because you missed it the first time): A world made up of false, fluctuation-generated, memories would not display correlations like those manifest when I watch my family album, legal documents, history books, etc, and compare them to my sensorial memories. Have you actually listened to Susskind's explanation? His point about Boltzmann's wife? You could have 1st-order coincidences, so to speak. Much more unlikely would be to have 2nd-order. Let alone 3rd, 4th, and apparently unlimited in the order or depth --if you will--. This is not a world of Boltzmann brains, only too obviously. This is a world in which what I see has been seen by many other 'processes' out there. You cannot simulate that with a thermal fluctuation.

Yes I watched the lecture.  I am getting frustrated that you are understanding what I am saying.  If your brain only lasts for a few seconds, or even a millisecond, you only have memories of the structures.  They won't actually be out there because your memories may not be of the actual structures. And what you see maybe illusions, a dream, a picture, i.e. a facade

I don't know why Susskind went in the direction he did.   

This is a type of solipsism.  It is quite difficult to rationalize your way out of it.

But let me guess, you are going to keep arguing anyways?

Edited June 26, 2023 by Boltzmannbrain

[TheVat]

BBrain is just a solipsistic philosophical conundrum and not a serious theory.  You can't argue against it any more than you can argue against Descartes's Demon or the flying spaghetti monster.  

Speaking as someone who used to post as BrainInaVat, I do appreciate Boltzmann Brain as a forum handle, though.  Got a LOL from me the first time I saw it.

Statistically, the vast majority of Boltzmann brains would see nothing but chaotic mush and internal confusion.  

[joigus]

2 hours ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

But let me guess, you are going to keep arguing anyways?

Why? The point has been settled. You don't get it, that's all. I can see that.

[Boltzmannbrain]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

BBrain is just a solipsistic philosophical conundrum and not a serious theory.  You can't argue against it any more than you can argue against Descartes's Demon or the flying spaghetti monster.  

Speaking as someone who used to post as BrainInaVat, I do appreciate Boltzmann Brain as a forum handle, though.  Got a LOL from me the first time I saw it.

Statistically, the vast majority of Boltzmann brains would see nothing but chaotic mush and internal confusion.  

Yeah, I definitely do not take the BB to be realistic.  Though I did think it was quite interesting when I first heard of it.  

29 minutes ago, joigus said:

Why? The point has been settled. You don't get it, that's all. I can see that.

Ok

[Mordred]

Might help to understand the BB theory starts at \(10^{-43} \) seconds. The theory describes how the Universe expands from that time forward.

The theory does not state what created the universe. That is a common misconception. Expansion itself simply follows the thermodynamic laws. So there is nothing unusual there.

[Genady]

LOL.

BB: Boltzmann Brain, Big Bang.