But my point, aside from the fun, is that there will be an infinite number of Boltzmann Enterprises — Patterner
Again, absafragginlootly! I think I maybe over-using that colloquialism.That said, better my thread than Bartricks'. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I don't account for it. Although it's fun, I think this whole topic is nonsense.But my point, aside from the fun, is that there will be an infinite number of Boltzmann Enterprises
— Patterner
How do you account for 'paradox' in your 'every possibility that can happen, will happen in time.'
If I state 'The only true existent regarding Boltzmann brains is that they have no true existent.'
Is that statement true given a very large or even infinite duration of time? — universeness
I grew up on TOS. I know a lot of people find it unwatchable because of the effects, but it and TNG are my favorites. Then Voyager.I enjoyed TNG the most, followed by Voyager I think. I was just getting into Discovery and Netflix took it off :sad: I won't spoil Picard Season 3 for you, but it gets a lot better. There's some nice surprises. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I grew up on TOS. I know a lot of people find it unwatchable because of the effects, but it and TNG are my favorites. Then Voyager. — Patterner
How do you account for 'paradox' in your 'every possibility that can happen, will happen in time.'
If I state 'The only true existent regarding Boltzmann brains is that they have no true existent.'
Is that statement true given a very large or even infinite duration of time? — universeness
Oddly, I never much watched it. No particular reason. I only saw a few scattered episodes. I'd like to. Guess I'll see if it's available on one channel or other.I'm not of that generation, but I can respect the nostalgia.
As your tastes are similar to mine, you must be a Stargate fan. SG1 if my favourite Sci-fi series. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Are we not material? Or did our consciousness arise unnaturally?And RogueAI is saying from the view that material cannot naturally give rise to consciousness, Boltzmann brains cannot exist in any event. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Are we not material? Or did our consciousness arise unnaturally? — Patterner
If Boltzmann Objects could exist, if the universe was infinitely old, we'd see billions of odd things floating around. So either they can't exist, or the universe is not infinitely old. — Patterner
I guess you can't argue with that. But I am skeptical. :D We also wouldn't see them if there weren't any. While not seeing any is not proof that there aren’t any, neither is it proof that there are. And our ability to list any number of reasons why we might not expect to find evidence of them is not evidence of them.Science suggests this bubble was started by a big bang about 14 billion years ago. Boltzmann Brains could have existed before our big bang, either in previous bubbles or from a quantum fluctuation. Or if there is a multiverse, there could be infinite Boltzmann Brains existing right now. We wouldn't see them from our bubble. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Yes. The elements don't join together simply by bumping into each other. You need a little burst of energy. How many of these little bursts will we need to make all the water in a brain?I don't know about shaking the hell *out* of it. But shaking the hell *into* it makes water.
I just applied a chunk of burning sulfur to my big bag of hydrogen and oxygen... ...and hell!!! — wonderer1
How would you calculate density for a infinite number of things (e.g., Boltzmann brains) in an infinitely large space? — RogueAI
How can you even prove that disembodied brains are possible? The only examples of brains that we have are as parts of bodies. I can't see how anyone could argue that they are more likely without first establishing that they are possible, and so far I don't think anyone has done that. — GRWelsh
This is flat out wrong. If BBs are more likely, then you probably are one.If Boltzmann Objects could exist, if the universe was infinitely old, we'd see billions of odd things floating around. — Patterner
Not a matter of proof. It's a function of the model behind which one chooses to stand. If the model (not reality) predicts a greater likelihood of being a BB, then the model cannot be justified. It is simply a method of discarding not wrong models, but the unjustifiable ones. If reality happens to actually correspond to something like that, then the nature of reality literally cannot be known.How can you even prove that disembodied brains are possible? — GRWelsh
Exactly. Given said life support (a far more improbable thing), then the BB would persist long enough to actually think (as opposed to just be in a mental state), and to perhaps sense things (presuming the life support included sensory organs).f a working brain could assemble itself randomly, then a working brain with life-support equipment would also be possible. — RogueAI
Can you back that assertion? It sure looks an awful lot like a collection of matter to me. And no, an BB would be these particles 'bumping into each other', which would give them momentum and such that a brain doesn't have. So the thing just appears by sheer chance, and yet, it is in a certain mental state at that moment. The next moment consciousness is gone because disembodied brains don't do so well in a vacuum, but a Boltzmann-Earth does fine in a vacuum and the inhabitants might take whole seconds to notice something wrong.A brain isn’t a bunch of pieces that can be put together like a puzzle. Even if all the necessary particles happened to bump into each other at the exact same instant, they would not be a working brain for even that instant. — Patterner
You can, but it's super improbable.Just as you can't place two pieces of wood end to end, and have one long piece of wood. — Patterner
Not a matter of proof. It's a function of the model behind which one chooses to stand. If the model (not reality) predicts a greater likelihood of being a BB, then the model cannot be justified. It is simply a method of discarding not wrong models, but the unjustifiable ones. If reality happens to actually correspond to something like that, then the nature of reality literally cannot be known.
Who made that claim? Boltzmann? Carroll? Some poster above?The claim is "in an infinite duration we are more likely to be a disembodied brain." — GRWelsh
I think you shouldn't, so I'm probably with you on it. To make such a claim is to totally misunderstand the BB issue.I am questioning why we should accept that claim of probability?
Now you're the one making a claim. Has it been established to be impossible? If not, what's left?And especially why should we accept it when it hasn't even been established that a disembodied brain -- simply appearing in space and time with false memories and lacking any sense organs -- is possible.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.