Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

The Boltzmann Brain

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:45:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis goes something like this:

According to quantum physics, the universe is arranged, on it's most basic level, by random quantum fluctuations. It was, indeed, a random fluctuation which caused the "Big Bang". It was a highly improbable fluctuation, made inevitable through infinity.

These fluctuations are the reason the universe is not symmetrical.

The universe is mostly in a state of "disorder". It is very improbable for "organization" to arise out of it. However, due to the opportunity inherent in the vastness of the cosmos, it becomes virtually inevitable that many high forms of organization will arise at some points in some places.

Our human civilization, organized enough to have largely reversed-entropy, can be viewed as an extension of quantum fluctuations. Organization is a fluctuation in it's own right. Based on probability, the occurrences of these sorts of fluctuations would be on the far end of less prevalent in comparison to the basic quantum fluctuations. A quantum fluctuation, itself, is actually a minute manifestation of organization out of pure chaos. The larger the organization/fluctuation, the less it's probable prevalence.

There is an odd sort of magic to this, in that we perceive our highly unlikely environment because it entails the necessary conditions for perceiving it. It seems unlikely to us even though, without such conditions, there would be no one to recognize how unlikely it is.

However, I haven't gotten to the hypothesis yet. It's essentially this; It is far more likely for your consciousness to have arising out of a single randomly organized system than a vast randomly organized system. As such, in all probability, the world around you (ironically, the one introducing this idea) is just the product of the imagination of a "lone brain floating in space".

Of course, a floating brain in space sounds silly according to your perspective of how brains work. But then again, your perspective would simply be the product of your imagination, if it's true. So, the answer could not be based on physical evidence. Rather, only logical deduction.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 3:31:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 12:45:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis goes something like this:

According to quantum physics, the universe is arranged, on it's most basic level, by random quantum fluctuations. It was, indeed, a random fluctuation which caused the "Big Bang". It was a highly improbable fluctuation, made inevitable through infinity.

These fluctuations are the reason the universe is not symmetrical.

The universe is mostly in a state of "disorder". It is very improbable for "organization" to arise out of it. However, due to the opportunity inherent in the vastness of the cosmos, it becomes virtually inevitable that many high forms of organization will arise at some points in some places.

Our human civilization, organized enough to have largely reversed-entropy, can be viewed as an extension of quantum fluctuations. Organization is a fluctuation in it's own right. Based on probability, the occurrences of these sorts of fluctuations would be on the far end of less prevalent in comparison to the basic quantum fluctuations. A quantum fluctuation, itself, is actually a minute manifestation of organization out of pure chaos. The larger the organization/fluctuation, the less it's probable prevalence.

There is an odd sort of magic to this, in that we perceive our highly unlikely environment because it entails the necessary conditions for perceiving it. It seems unlikely to us even though, without such conditions, there would be no one to recognize how unlikely it is.

However, I haven't gotten to the hypothesis yet. It's essentially this; It is far more likely for your consciousness to have arising out of a single randomly organized system than a vast randomly organized system. As such, in all probability, the world around you (ironically, the one introducing this idea) is just the product of the imagination of a "lone brain floating in space".

Of course, a floating brain in space sounds silly according to your perspective of how brains work. But then again, your perspective would simply be the product of your imagination, if it's true. So, the answer could not be based on physical evidence. Rather, only logical deduction.

I think the logical deduction is that the Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis is nonsense because it is based on a misunderstanding of quantum physics, that just isn't what quantum phyics has to say about the results of quantum fluctuations. He is also trying to apply logic to quantum physics and logic doesn't apply to quantu physics.

The comparison between the statistical likelihood of our rich environment with billions of self-aware beings is much less likely than a random fluctuation causing a solitary brain, but his analysis postulates that against an assumption of a homogenous high entropy universe. According to the Standard Model, the unequal distribution of matter and energy that we observe resulted from a random fluctuation during the inflationary epoch, and the resulting stars, galaxies, etc, create systems that are not closed in which energy is transferred, so it"s much more likely that my brain evolved in a system which is not closed because energy is being introduced by the sun. Imaginary or not, the fact is that a high entropy universe is not consistent with our observations, and neither are random brains,, there are a lot of self-aware beings out there, they are connected in time and space, and even if such high levels of organization were to appear spontaneously by quantum fluctuations, the entropy in the organized system would immediately begin to increase and the organization would begin to come undone. None of that is consistent with observations.

The Boltzmann Paradox is self-refuting because it is based on a logical system of thought which through observations gave us the principles it is based on, and yet tries to refute the logical connections, observations and principles by concluding they are imaginary, which would make the Boltzmann Brain Paradox imaginary.

It"s not a whole lot different than the brain in a vat thought exercise, but that too doesn"t meet the statistical likelihood criteria, which is the only criteria available under both scenarios.

Dilbert gave a pretty good refutation also, if it"s imaginary, it"s more likely I"d imagine it better too.

http://www.dilbert.com...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 5:25:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What do you mean, that the universe isn't symmetrical?

All matter in existence doesn't have a proclivity for entropy; only matter in energy form. Matter in material form behaves oppositely. Consider magnetism and gravity.

Perhaps it's more that, existence is less existence and simply consciousness innate and already present, but derived from only complex arrangements that are just so. We are the Universe growing eyes and looking at itself.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 7:46:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 5:25:05 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
What do you mean, that the universe isn't symmetrical?

All matter in existence doesn't have a proclivity for entropy; only matter in energy form. Matter in material form behaves oppositely. Consider magnetism and gravity.

If matter had the opposite proclivity, then throwing shards of glass onto the ground would result in them combining to form a whole glass.


Perhaps it's more that, existence is less existence and simply consciousness innate and already present, but derived from only complex arrangements that are just so. We are the Universe growing eyes and looking at itself.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 8:56:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 7:46:59 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/17/2013 5:25:05 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
What do you mean, that the universe isn't symmetrical?

All matter in existence doesn't have a proclivity for entropy; only matter in energy form. Matter in material form behaves oppositely. Consider magnetism and gravity.

If matter had the opposite proclivity, then throwing shards of glass onto the ground would result in them combining to form a whole glass.

How do you figure that?

Entropy isn't quite an explosion of matter. Glass in shards is the result of energy expressed to the extent that it broke material bonds. However, glass does not simply shatter by itself.

If matter didn't behave oppositely, there'd be no such thing as shards of glass, and even if there were, it surely wouldn't remain smaller shards of glass once you threw it at something. It would atrophy into lesser elements, at least.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 9:30:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 8:56:28 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/17/2013 7:46:59 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/17/2013 5:25:05 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
What do you mean, that the universe isn't symmetrical?

All matter in existence doesn't have a proclivity for entropy; only matter in energy form. Matter in material form behaves oppositely. Consider magnetism and gravity.

If matter had the opposite proclivity, then throwing shards of glass onto the ground would result in them combining to form a whole glass.

How do you figure that?

"The thermodynamic arrow is derived from the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in any closed system, disorder (entropy) always increases with time. Take an example of a glass falling from a table. The glass begins in a state of heightened order; it is all in one piece. As time passes, the glass hits the floor, and shatters into many pieces, increasing the disorder, or entropy, tremendously."

http://library.thinkquest.org...

The glass shattering scenario is a pretty iconic representation of entropy in action. In fact, all representations of entropy involve matter.


Entropy isn't quite an explosion of matter.

No, but it is a reordering of matter.

Glass in shards is the result of energy expressed to the extent that it broke material bonds. However, glass does not simply shatter by itself.

If matter didn't behave oppositely, there'd be no such thing as shards of glass, and even if there were, it surely wouldn't remain smaller shards of glass once you threw it at something. It would atrophy into lesser elements, at least.

How so?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 9:45:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 12:45:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis goes something like this:

According to quantum physics, the universe is arranged, on it's most basic level, by random quantum fluctuations. It was, indeed, a random fluctuation which caused the "Big Bang". It was a highly improbable fluctuation, made inevitable through infinity.

These fluctuations are the reason the universe is not symmetrical.

The universe is mostly in a state of "disorder". It is very improbable for "organization" to arise out of it. However, due to the opportunity inherent in the vastness of the cosmos, it becomes virtually inevitable that many high forms of organization will arise at some points in some places.

Our human civilization, organized enough to have largely reversed-entropy, can be viewed as an extension of quantum fluctuations. Organization is a fluctuation in it's own right. Based on probability, the occurrences of these sorts of fluctuations would be on the far end of less prevalent in comparison to the basic quantum fluctuations. A quantum fluctuation, itself, is actually a minute manifestation of organization out of pure chaos. The larger the organization/fluctuation, the less it's probable prevalence.

There is an odd sort of magic to this, in that we perceive our highly unlikely environment because it entails the necessary conditions for perceiving it. It seems unlikely to us even though, without such conditions, there would be no one to recognize how unlikely it is.

However, I haven't gotten to the hypothesis yet. It's essentially this; It is far more likely for your consciousness to have arising out of a single randomly organized system than a vast randomly organized system. As such, in all probability, the world around you (ironically, the one introducing this idea) is just the product of the imagination of a "lone brain floating in space".

Of course, a floating brain in space sounds silly according to your perspective of how brains work. But then again, your perspective would simply be the product of your imagination, if it's true. So, the answer could not be based on physical evidence. Rather, only logical deduction.

No dice.

Useful negative entropy results from the infusion of energy into a system. For instance, earth, and the beings on it, are powered by the sun. When the sun goes out, entropy takes over.

Entropic results from quantum fluctuations only matter on an infintensimal (sp) level. Any organization you can get can just as easily go away.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 9:51:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 9:30:17 AM, drafterman wrote:

How do you figure that?

"The thermodynamic arrow is derived from the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in any closed system, disorder (entropy) always increases with time. Take an example of a glass falling from a table. The glass begins in a state of heightened order; it is all in one piece. As time passes, the glass hits the floor, and shatters into many pieces, increasing the disorder, or entropy, tremendously."

http://library.thinkquest.org...

The glass shattering scenario is a pretty iconic representation of entropy in action. In fact, all representations of entropy involve matter.

That, in my perspective, was an illustration rather than a proof. In other words, a glass shattering is not a form of entropy, as it is not a form of degradation. It is literally the destruction of some chemical/material bonds due to an expression of energy that exceeds the threshold of those bonds. This is why I indicated:

Entropy isn't quite an explosion of matter.

...because, glass shattering, for all intents and purposes, is an explosion. It not

a reordering of matter.

...but, only a breakage in the bonds it initially had. However, that glass does not continue to degrade (which belies entropy) once it hits the floor, and it does not turn into something else (which belies reordering). It is simply glass, it more pieces than it was before, because:

Glass in shards is the result of energy expressed to the extent that it broke material bonds. However, glass does not simply shatter by itself.

Entropy, on the other hand, does occur by itself, all the time, without relent, because entropy is actually the reduction of matter through the expression of energy. Not all entropy involves matter by a long shot. Entropy occurs in free energy as well. This is why an elecromagnetic field will eventually dissipate -- because the photons it comprises dissipates from an organized state (a field) into a bunch of disordered photons.

Accordingly:

If matter didn't behave oppositely, there'd be no such thing as shards of glass, and even if there were, it surely wouldn't remain smaller shards of glass once you threw it at something. It would atrophy into lesser elements, at least.

How so?

Because, the constituents of glass would not remain constructed for long enough to eventually participate in the chemical reaction that produces glass, much less would the glass itself remain existant for long enough to be of any use, as the energy expressed that produced that chemical reaction would continue its expression until the glass is exhausted.

But, it doesn't. In fact, energy expression can be reduced to nearly nothing by freezing something, which similarly reduces its rate of entropy. This is because entropy is entirely contingent on energy expression.

Now, don't get me wrong. Matter does convert into energy. Mathematically speaking, energy and matter are essentially the same thing. However, it requires this conversion for entropy to occur.

This also suggests that life is the contradiction of entropy. Life, as we know it, is self-sustaining that maintains its existence and operation through the consumption of energy, and in greater proportions than its inclined to entropy. Accordingly, life is essentially matter in its most ordered state acting against entropy. Given the existence of such physical properties as antimatter and dark energy, there is a suggestion that entropy may not be as insurmountable as initially assumed.

Notice even Steve Hawking's confusion on the matter.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 10:00:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 9:51:21 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:

This also suggests that life is the contradiction of entropy.

Bzzt. Sorry, you had me until this. The idea of life contradicting entropy has long since been debunked. In your assessment of life contradicting entropy, did you calculate the increase in entropy as a result of heat produced by those living organisms as well as the entropy increase necessary to provide the energy living organisms need to survive?
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 10:07:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 10:00:34 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/17/2013 9:51:21 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:

This also suggests that life is the contradiction of entropy.

Bzzt. Sorry, you had me until this. The idea of life contradicting entropy has long since been debunked. In your assessment of life contradicting entropy, did you calculate the increase in entropy as a result of heat produced by those living organisms as well as the entropy increase necessary to provide the energy living organisms need to survive?

Yes... and death is sort of an entropic collapse...

Well, I concede that life is not immune or subject to entropy, but I still maintain that life acts against it, lest it wouldn't make it even so far as to come alive... Cellular entropy, for example, prevents all cells from living long enough to become any more complex without mitochondria, for example.

But, it is true that the longer something remains alive, the greater entropy it experiences until it can no longer sustain this living arrangement, and there's no way around this, to human knowledge.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 10:22:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To say that life "acts against entropy" is to ignore the entire process involved and only looking at the part of increasing order.

It's like losing all your money in a financial investment but still calling it profitable because one one of the months you made money despite still losing all your money in the end.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 10:33:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bringing it back to the initial theory, though, there is matter throughout the Universe. I think it's safe to say that it's in a largely ordered state, and continues to produce order, rather than the other way around.

It's a curious thing, but order requires energy just as entropy results from it.

Thus, there's another aspect of the interplay between matter and energy that the OP isn't considering -- the catalyst.

You see, with catalysts, you have the potential for large energy expressions, which causes matter to achieve an ordered state via chemical bonds. Catalysts seem to occur as a natural characteristic of energy movement and interaction. So, although nothing will remain in an ordered state, there will always be ordered states, because once this energy is expressed, it will go on to do something else, which will create something else, because energy is neither created nor destroyed.

So, consider an internal combustion engine that runs on water. It runs, because it exhausts water by using an electrical pulse to convert it into hydrogen and oxygen (thereby expelling both), but with each moment it runs, it's closer to no longer running, due to the exhaustion of this fuel. That's entropy. But, let's say that once this water is consumed, the resulting gas enters a containment chamber, where it is recombined through another electric pulse. It can then filter back into the engine as water for consumption, technically indefinitely, much the way a carburator recycles a single charge.

This isn't exactly belying entropy, per say, as much as it is working around the interplay between matter and energy. In this way, entropy isn't quite a one-way street in that everything is constantly dissolving and will eventually turn into a fine mist of subatomic particles (Bose-Einstein condensate?). That would require the complete consumption of energy in a perfectly even distribution. It is about as likely that the entire universe will be devoured by a giant black hole -- the antithesis of entropy and full disbursement, for all intents and purposes.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 10:35:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 10:22:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
To say that life "acts against entropy" is to ignore the entire process involved and only looking at the part of increasing order.

It's like losing all your money in a financial investment but still calling it profitable because one one of the months you made money despite still losing all your money in the end.

Well, during that month, wasn't it profitable?

I mean, sure, life is not immune to entropy, but it does act against entropy to even exist.

Likewise, that investment must have been profitable to some extent to exist for any duration of time. The longer an investment profits, the longer it survives.

Likewise, the longer life acts against entropy, the longer it survives as well.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 1:50:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 10:35:45 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/17/2013 10:22:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
To say that life "acts against entropy" is to ignore the entire process involved and only looking at the part of increasing order.

It's like losing all your money in a financial investment but still calling it profitable because one one of the months you made money despite still losing all your money in the end.

Well, during that month, wasn't it profitable?

But we're not limiting our discussion to that month. We're talking about the entire venture as a whole.


I mean, sure, life is not immune to entropy, but it does act against entropy to even exist.

Not when you consider the entirety of it.


Likewise, that investment must have been profitable to some extent to exist for any duration of time. The longer an investment profits, the longer it survives.

Likewise, the longer life acts against entropy, the longer it survives as well.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 4:47:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think any of the critiques presented yet, or the usual critiques made, adequately address the hypothesis.

However, I don't agree with the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. I think it forgets to include that smaller systems of organization exists within larger ones and are, by probability, more likely to arise in a larger one than on it's own.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 6:27:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 12:45:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis goes something like this:

According to quantum physics, the universe is arranged, on it's most basic level, by random quantum fluctuations. It was, indeed, a random fluctuation which caused the "Big Bang". It was a highly improbable fluctuation, made inevitable through infinity.
Well, I assume then that this must be within the "Multiverse" concept of "reality" as opposed to the single Universe concept of reality. OK, I'll bite.

These fluctuations are the reason the universe is not symmetrical.
What do you mean not symmetrical? This can mean so many things.

The universe is mostly in a state of "disorder". It is very improbable for "organization" to arise out of it. However, due to the opportunity inherent in the vastness of the cosmos, it becomes virtually inevitable that many high forms of organization will arise at some points in some places.
This is a highly flawed view because on man's "order" can be another's disorder and vice versa. It's akin to saying hot vs cold: relative terms. There are generally 2 types of order that are inversely related: Grouping & Symmetry Orders. The more you have of one the less you have of the other and vice versa.

Our human civilization, organized enough to have largely reversed-entropy, can be viewed as an extension of quantum fluctuations.
That's totally wrong: entropy cannot be reversed. The entropy of the universe is ever increasing REGARDLESS of human activity.

Organization is a fluctuation in it's own right. Based on probability, the occurrences of these sorts of fluctuations would be on the far end of less prevalent in comparison to the basic quantum fluctuations. A quantum fluctuation, itself, is actually a minute manifestation of organization out of pure chaos. The larger the organization/fluctuation, the less it's probable prevalence.
This is a gross misunderstanding of "quantum fluctuations". Also, there's no such thing as "pure chaos". One can find "organization" in ANYTHING no matter how chaotic. This is akin to saying something is pure cold or pure hot.

There is an odd sort of magic to this, in that we perceive our highly unlikely environment because it entails the necessary conditions for perceiving it. It seems unlikely to us even though, without such conditions, there would be no one to recognize how unlikely it is.

However, I haven't gotten to the hypothesis yet. It's essentially this; It is far more likely for your consciousness to have arising out of a single randomly organized system than a vast randomly organized system. As such, in all probability, the world around you (ironically, the one introducing this idea) is just the product of the imagination of a "lone brain floating in space".
I dunno what you mean by a "single randomly organized system" vs "vast randomly organized system"; ergo, I cannot comment on this.

Of course, a floating brain in space sounds silly according to your perspective of how brains work. But then again, your perspective would simply be the product of your imagination, if it's true. So, the answer could not be based on physical evidence. Rather, only logical deduction.
Epic non sequitur!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 7:00:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 6:27:54 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/17/2013 12:45:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis goes something like this:

These fluctuations are the reason the universe is not symmetrical.

What do you mean not symmetrical? This can mean so many things.

The universe expanded from a single point. The fact that everything doesn't look the same in all directions means there has been some force off setting it.

The universe is mostly in a state of "disorder". It is very improbable for "organization" to arise out of it. However, due to the opportunity inherent in the vastness of the cosmos, it becomes virtually inevitable that many high forms of organization will arise at some points in some places.

This is a highly flawed view because on man's "order" can be another's disorder and vice versa. It's akin to saying hot vs cold: relative terms. There are generally 2 types of order that are inversely related: Grouping & Symmetry Orders. The more you have of one the less you have of the other and vice versa.

I agree. Except that I am using "order" to represent something specific. Namely, the level of structure. As in, a chemical compound is more "structured" than an individual atom.

Our human civilization, organized enough to have largely reversed-entropy, can be viewed as an extension of quantum fluctuations.

That's totally wrong: entropy cannot be reversed. The entropy of the universe is ever increasing REGARDLESS of human activity.

I don't mean to say that entropy is literally reversed in the universe. But that human civilization, observed as apart from the universe, increases in it's level of structure.

Organization is a fluctuation in it's own right. Based on probability, the occurrences of these sorts of fluctuations would be on the far end of less prevalent in comparison to the basic quantum fluctuations. A quantum fluctuation, itself, is actually a minute manifestation of organization out of pure chaos. The larger the organization/fluctuation, the less it's probable prevalence.

This is a gross misunderstanding of "quantum fluctuations". Also, there's no such thing as "pure chaos". One can find "organization" in ANYTHING no matter how chaotic. This is akin to saying something is pure cold or pure hot.

Pure chaos represents formlessness in comparison with our understanding of material consistency. It is neither order nor disorder. It's essentially nothing, so, in a certain respect, yeah, you could say there's no such thing--but that would be the point.

Also, pure cold and pure hot are both real things. I don't know why you would bring it up. Pure cold, or 0 Kelvin, is motionlessness and pure hot, with the most energy possible for a certain particle, is about 100 Nonillion Kelvin.

However, I haven't gotten to the hypothesis yet. It's essentially this; It is far more likely for your consciousness to have arising out of a single randomly organized system than a vast randomly organized system. As such, in all probability, the world around you (ironically, the one introducing this idea) is just the product of the imagination of a "lone brain floating in space".

I dunno what you mean by a "single randomly organized system" vs "vast randomly organized system"; ergo, I cannot comment on this.

Both are arbitrary. It only matters what they are in comparison with one another.

Of course, a floating brain in space sounds silly according to your perspective of how brains work. But then again, your perspective would simply be the product of your imagination, if it's true. So, the answer could not be based on physical evidence. Rather, only logical deduction.
Epic non sequitur!

What is a non sequitur? That, if everything was in your imagination, physical evidence wouldn't matter? That's the only assertion I made there.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 8:42:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 7:00:45 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/17/2013 6:27:54 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/17/2013 12:45:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis goes something like this:

These fluctuations are the reason the universe is not symmetrical.

What do you mean not symmetrical? This can mean so many things.

The universe expanded from a single point. The fact that everything doesn't look the same in all directions means there has been some force off setting it.

The universe is mostly in a state of "disorder". It is very improbable for "organization" to arise out of it. However, due to the opportunity inherent in the vastness of the cosmos, it becomes virtually inevitable that many high forms of organization will arise at some points in some places.

This is a highly flawed view because on man's "order" can be another's disorder and vice versa. It's akin to saying hot vs cold: relative terms. There are generally 2 types of order that are inversely related: Grouping & Symmetry Orders. The more you have of one the less you have of the other and vice versa.

I agree. Except that I am using "order" to represent something specific. Namely, the level of structure. As in, a chemical compound is more "structured" than an individual atom.

Our human civilization, organized enough to have largely reversed-entropy, can be viewed as an extension of quantum fluctuations.

That's totally wrong: entropy cannot be reversed. The entropy of the universe is ever increasing REGARDLESS of human activity.

I don't mean to say that entropy is literally reversed in the universe. But that human civilization, observed as apart from the universe, increases in it's level of structure.

Organization is a fluctuation in it's own right. Based on probability, the occurrences of these sorts of fluctuations would be on the far end of less prevalent in comparison to the basic quantum fluctuations. A quantum fluctuation, itself, is actually a minute manifestation of organization out of pure chaos. The larger the organization/fluctuation, the less it's probable prevalence.

This is a gross misunderstanding of "quantum fluctuations". Also, there's no such thing as "pure chaos". One can find "organization" in ANYTHING no matter how chaotic. This is akin to saying something is pure cold or pure hot.

Pure chaos represents formlessness in comparison with our understanding of material consistency. It is neither order nor disorder. It's essentially nothing, so, in a certain respect, yeah, you could say there's no such thing--but that would be the point.

Also, pure cold and pure hot are both real things. I don't know why you would bring it up. Pure cold, or 0 Kelvin, is motionlessness and pure hot, with the most energy possible for a certain particle, is about 100 Nonillion Kelvin.

However, I haven't gotten to the hypothesis yet. It's essentially this; It is far more likely for your consciousness to have arising out of a single randomly organized system than a vast randomly organized system. As such, in all probability, the world around you (ironically, the one introducing this idea) is just the product of the imagination of a "lone brain floating in space".

I dunno what you mean by a "single randomly organized system" vs "vast randomly organized system"; ergo, I cannot comment on this.

Both are arbitrary. It only matters what they are in comparison with one another.

Of course, a floating brain in space sounds silly according to your perspective of how brains work. But then again, your perspective would simply be the product of your imagination, if it's true. So, the answer could not be based on physical evidence. Rather, only logical deduction.
Epic non sequitur!

What is a non sequitur? That, if everything was in your imagination, physical evidence wouldn't matter? That's the only assertion I made there.

Seems you'd appreciate more imagination applied to your concepts as well.

Perhaps if you were interested in considering the theories that led to your conclusion rather than the conclusion itself just yet, we can have a conversation rather than a pissing contest, if you'd like.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 8:19:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Since most Boltzmann brains would wink out of existence almost immediately, whereas I see a consistent universe, I conclude that A) I am in the .000000000000000000001% of Boltzmann brains that happen to have an imaginary world that makes sense or B) I am part of a random group of matter that has generated me via natural selection processes. There's simply no argument. This is where Occam's Razor can be applied so easily it cannot be defied on any rational level whatsoever.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 8:19:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, this should be in philosophy.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 9:10:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
No this topic is firmly rooted in science even if it is a metaphysic. For it seeks to explain natural phenomenology with appeals to natural phenomenology, albeit a more elaborate schema.

Anyhow, I appreciate what Sidewalker says even though I disagree in certain parts. (One can't be sure where).

My only point that I wanted to raise what the historical fact that Boltzmann himself actually committed suicide because none of his peers were the 'wiser' to accept this entropic proposal... just a fun fact!
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 9:11:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 9:10:53 AM, Apeiron wrote:
No this topic is firmly rooted in science even if it is a metaphysic. For it seeks to explain natural phenomenology with appeals to natural phenomenology, albeit a more elaborate schema.

Anyhow, I appreciate what Sidewalker says even though I disagree in certain parts. (One can't be sure where).

My only point that I wanted to raise was the historical fact that Boltzmann himself actually committed suicide because none of his peers were the 'wiser' to accept this entropic proposal... just a fun fact!

Fixed.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 4:51:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"it becomes virtually inevitable that many high forms of organization will arise at some points in some places."

Why is it inevitable? The only reason one would say that is because they want to "believe" it so. Probability infers "odds" which is rejected because the odds are to astronomical.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 5:27:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 4:51:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
"it becomes virtually inevitable that many high forms of organization will arise at some points in some places."

Why is it inevitable? The only reason one would say that is because they want to "believe" it so. Probability infers "odds" which is rejected because the odds are to astronomical.

hence "vitually". Theoretically, it could not occur, but its unlikely due to probability.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...