Now you're the one making a claim. Has it been established to be impossible? If not, what's left? — noAxioms
It is. But it didn't come into that arrangement when a quintillion (whatever) particles all happened to bump into each other in the exact right arrangement. You can shake a bag of hydrogen and oxygen, but you won't make water. Something more than their physical contact is needed. You can't shake a bag of protein and fatty substances, and pull out meylin sheath. You can't add iron, proteins, and lipids to a bowl, stir, and have a bowl of blood. Physics and Chemistry can tell us how X and Y can be joined together in any given case.Can you back that assertion? It sure looks an awful lot like a collection of matter to me. — noAxioms
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. — GRWelsh
I don't see that Gar is making a claim. GR is asking how's it had been established that such a thing can be possible. And that cannot be established. As for "What's left"! A universe in which life came came about on Earth, and we evolved.Now you're the one making a claim. Has it been established to be impossible? If not, what's left? — noAxioms
No model has been specified, and in cases such as this, the model must precede the establishment of any facts such as the possibility of BBs. It's kind of backwards from the usual situation where the observations precede the model.has this been established as possible? — GRWelsh
Again, the model precedes the evidence. Given the wrong model, there can be no evidence.What is the argument and evidence to back up that claim? — GRWelsh
There we go. You have a model of pre-existing particles bumping into each other by chance. It's not the usual model, but a workable one.But it didn't come into that arrangement when a quintillion (whatever) particles all happened to bump into each other in the exact right arrangement. — Patterner
Actually, that's pretty much how most of the water gets made, so I very much beg to differ.You can shake a bag of hydrogen and oxygen, but you won't make water. — Patterner
Astronomical odds are still finite, so when multiplied by infinite time, they become not just probable, but certain. I don't think you realize the size of the numbers they talk about when discussing these sorts of probabilities. They are astronomical indeed, and they don't need to be a human brain (or even a 3-dimensional construct). It just needs to be something in a state believing it is a 3d human, and believing in theory X.Dr. Manhattan can say, "Thermodynamic miracles... events with odds against so astronomical they're effectively impossible, — Patterner
That is not how any water was made. Simple physical contact does not combine the atoms. A Google search will bring up any number of sites about it. Energy is required. A spark.You can shake a bag of hydrogen and oxygen, but you won't make water.
— Patterner
Actually, that's pretty much how most of the water gets made, so I very much beg to differ. — noAxioms
What are the odds, and how are they determined? How is it known that it is effectively impossible, rather than impossible?Dr. Manhattan can say, "Thermodynamic miracles... events with odds against so astronomical they're effectively impossible,
— Patterner
Astronomical odds are still finite, so when multiplied by infinite time, they become not just probable, but certain. I don't think you realize the size of the numbers they talk about when discussing these sorts of probabilities. — noAxioms
A sack of hydrogen and oxygen has no energy? What does more energy do other than increase the rate at which they hit each other hard enough? A sack full of room temperature molecules will occasionally impart enough speed to some of the particles that they will react/combine. It's just slower.Energy is required. A spark. — Patterner
I think that's the right question. Dr Manhattan is perhaps assuming a model that yields sufficiently low probabilities (like ones that drop off over time so an infinite series of them converges to a low number). That's what makes it 'sufficiently unlikely'.What are the odds, and how are they determined? — Patterner
For what? That 0.00[an awful lot of zeros]06 * 100[an unlimited number of zeros] yields something large? You require a reference for that or are you contesting something else??? Reference, please. — jgill
Excellent question. I hadn’t thought of it that way. That being the case, how can we calculate the odds that all of the particles needed to form a BB would ever be near each other?How would you calculate density for a infinite number of things (e.g., Boltzmann brains) in an infinitely large space? — RogueAI
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.