• universeness
    6.3k

    Absafragginlootly! and WHEN I gain full possession, the first things I will do, is drop 'Boltzmann' from the name, and go looking for a qualified Captain who looks a little bit like William Shatner or, if I am pushed, Scott Bakula or maybe even Avery Brooks :chin:
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    518


    Well, Shatner's a classic, but Patick Stewart is my favourite captain of all time.

    Have you finished the new Star Trek: Picard? I've still got two episodes to go.
  • Patterner
    599
    Have you people no respect for dibs?!? Barbarians!
  • universeness
    6.3k

    My dibs are bigger that your dibs :lol: The neverending claim of all historical and current gangsters/heros/nations and so called, attempts at human civilisations.
    Sorry, I am experiencing some cognitive crossover between this thread and the other that I am posting on right now, 'Culture is Critical.'
  • universeness
    6.3k

    Picard or 'Patrick Stewart' is just too 'Shakespearian' for me. I still love TNG of course.
    I have finished watching Picard season 2, and Discovery season 4 and I have started watching Strange new worlds, season 1. I don't buy the cartoon ones such as 'below decks.' I only buy the DVD sets when they become available. I cant be bothered watching a series, in a episodic style, as they come on-line.
    I prefer to play catch up, and watch the DVD's under my terms, rather than under the terms imposed by some broadcaster. The Picard arc is a bit bizarre here and there. I am not too keen on the Borg storyline and the 'pop up' moment of 'Wesley Crusher' that seems to have been pointless.
    Addition: I also hated Picard's 'reincarnation' after he was killed!
    I am happy to enjoy this divergence from the OP in this thread, as it's your thread, but the mods may insist such 'chat' style exchanges, be moved to the shoutbox or the lounge.
    Addition 2: The 'Discovery' series storylines have been ok, but the amount of teary eyed exchanges and 'breathy' emotional exchanges between the characters, has almost totally destroyed the impact of the show imo.
  • Patterner
    599
    it may be divergence, but it is also entirely legit. OK, maybe there couldn’t be such a thing as a functioning Enterprise, Boltzmann or otherwise, for reasons of how the technology works. But my point, aside from the fun, is that there will be an infinite number of Boltzmann Enterprises. As well as Defiants, Voyagers, etc. And all of these, but with each other's names. And each, but named USS Boltzmann. And my favorite, the USS Tao, for which I'm willing to give up the Enterpris. As well as an infinite number of Death Stars, Godzillas, Green Destiny swords, Enola Gays (both laden and not), levers big enough to move the world levers big enough to move the world (Archimedes has dibs, I believe), and every other damn thing we can think of, and those we cannot think of. There’s no reason the process that brings about a brain wouldn’t bring about anything and everything else.
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    518


    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.

    Blame @Patterner for setting me off. That said, better my thread than @Bartricks'.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    But my point, aside from the fun, is that there will be an infinite number of Boltzmann EnterprisesPatterner

    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
    6.3k
    That said, better my thread than Bartricks'.Down The Rabbit Hole
    Again, absafragginlootly! I think I maybe over-using that colloquialism.
  • Patterner
    599
    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 don't account for it. Although it's fun, I think this whole topic is nonsense.


    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.
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    518


    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

    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.



    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

    (Unless all of this suddenly appeared from literally nothing, was created by god/s, or is an illusion) we know that patterns are spat out from something, like a QRF, or infinite universe/s (whether cyclical or a multiverse). Provided it's possible for Boltzmann brains to form, in an objective sense, they will almost certainly exist.

    The question is how likely are we to be a Boltzmann brain. The Sean Carroll objection, that other posters have picked up on, suggests we cannot sensibly measure. As by doing so would be from the assumption that we are not a Boltzmann brain with false memories. I think @noAxioms is suggesting that our theory of how patterns form is more important than the fact there has been an infinite duration. And @RogueAI is saying from the view that material cannot naturally give rise to consciousness, Boltzmann brains cannot exist in any event.
  • Patterner
    599
    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
    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.


    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?
  • universeness
    6.3k

    Yeah, I think I get at least the main jist, of all the points made.
    I only cited paradox just to exemplify the notion of 'we just cant currently know.'
    This is probably all we can say for sure, regarding the existence of Boltzmann Brains.
    In science, no theory can go further than the theory stage! No scientific theory can be declared FACT.
    No matter how good the evidence, because exhaustive testing is impossible.
  • Patterner
    599
    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.

    Still, if they could exist, isn't the universe old enough that we'd see SOME odd things floating around? Any of an infinite number of possible things might come into being at any given moment. Surely, something would have come along in our neighborhood my now. No? A replica of the Empire State Building crashes into Mars. Something that looks like an alien ship floats around near Jupiter. Action Comics #1 falls in my lap. Or the telescopes see something farther away that doesn't seem explainable in any non-Boltzmann way. Infinite possibilities in 13.8 billion years didn't produce anything that left a trace?
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    518


    Are we not material? Or did our consciousness arise unnaturally?Patterner

    I think consciousness is most likely either a property of matter or arises from it. Some people believe there is a non-material substance (such as a soul) that combines with the material to make consciousness.

    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

    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.
  • RogueAI
    2.6k
    How would you calculate density for a infinite number of things (e.g., Boltzmann brains) in an infinitely large space?
  • Patterner
    599
    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
    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.

    I doubt they are possible. If you take an airtight bag - or, rather, a hydrogentight bag - fill it with hydrogen and oxygen, and shake the hell out of it, will you maker water? I don't think a functioning brain will come into being if the right particles happen to bump into each other. I suspect they only work when they grow in the manner, and the order, that our brains grew.
  • wonderer1
    1.8k
    If you take an airtight bag - or, rather, a hydrogentight bag - fill it with hydrogen and oxygen, and shake the hell out of it, will you maker water?


    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!!!
  • Patterner
    599
    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
    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?

    There are almost a couple hundred billion cells in the brain, and they can't be free floating cells and still be viable when they all bump into each other. So we need the constituent parts of all the cells to be in exactly the right places at the right time. But they won't form cells simply but bumping into each other, any more than hydrogen and oxygen will form water. What energy/reactions are needed for every joining at every level?

    And will all of these joinings succeed when they are all as tightly packed as they'd need to be, with all these energy bursts and reactions going off all around them? We can eliminate the bursts needed for the formation of all the needed water by having free-floating water molecules. They couldn't be free-floating in groups, or they'd be useless ice. But I guess individual molecules would be fine. So that's some billions fewer of energy bursts to screw with the other formations. But it's not enough to make this scenario at all possible.
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    518


    How would you calculate density for a infinite number of things (e.g., Boltzmann brains) in an infinitely large space?RogueAI

    Good question. It may be that density has no meaning within infinity.
  • GRWelsh
    185
    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.
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    518


    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

    Yes, that's a strong objection.

    Disembodied brains can exist, but they don't last long. I think I read that upon decapitation consciousness lasts for up to 10 seconds, and brain death occurs within 3-6 minutes.

    Say viable brains with false memories appear as a result of quantum fluctuations - they only need to last momentarily for you to be having the experience you are having now. As your memories could be false, you don't know that you existed before this moment.
  • Patterner
    599
    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.
  • RogueAI
    2.6k

    If a working brain could assemble itself randomly, then a working brain with life-support equipment would also be possible. The Boltzmann argument would have to work that way, because I'm not passing out due to lack of oxygen.
  • Patterner
    599
    The issue isn't life-support for the brain. It's the assembly. It's not a simple matter of assembling the pieces. The particles that make up a brain can't be assembled like a jigsaw puzzle. Put all of the (good lord, how's many?) atoms exactly where they would be in a functioning brain, and you would not have a functioning brain. They don't simply bond to all of those they need to bond to because they are touching.
  • RogueAI
    2.6k
    I don't anything about that part of it. You're saying Boltzmann is wrong?
  • Patterner
    599

    I am. You can't put the hundred trillion atoms that would be needed to make a single living cell right next to each other, and get a living cell. Just as you can't place two pieces of wood end to end, and have one long piece of wood. That's not how long pieces of wood come about. And it's not how brain cells come about, much less entire brains.
  • noAxioms
    1.4k
    If Boltzmann Objects could exist, if the universe was infinitely old, we'd see billions of odd things floating around.Patterner
    This is flat out wrong. If BBs are more likely, then you probably are one.

    Regardless, if we're not one, we do not expect to see one. Far more likely is space filled with Boltzmann 100 euro notes, and we don't see those either. One must understand the sheer improbability of these things, which become likely only when multiplied by the idiot amount of time given for them to occur.

    If you are a BB, then we don't 'see' anything. It is a solipsistic existence. One cannot measure the age of the universe (have you ever personally done it?), and since there's nobody else to do it, there's no way to know.

    No model predicts that anything (BB or not) actually sees something like this.

    How can you even prove that disembodied brains are possible?GRWelsh
    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.

    f a working brain could assemble itself randomly, then a working brain with life-support equipment would also be possible.RogueAI
    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).

    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
    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.
    I'm admittedly not sure of how relativity deals with mass (of a brain, planet, galaxy or 'universe') suddenly appearing out of nowhere. It violates all sorts of conservation laws, but lacking a unified theory, I don't think we can dismiss the conjecture at this point.

    Just as you can't place two pieces of wood end to end, and have one long piece of wood.Patterner
    You can, but it's super improbable.
  • GRWelsh
    185
    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.

    The claim is "in an infinite duration we are more likely to be a disembodied brain." I am questioning why we should accept that claim of probability? 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. If no support is offered to support this claim, why should I accept it? In other words, I don't see why, given an infinite duration, we should accept that we are more likely to be Boltzmann Brains than what we think we are (embodied brains living on earth). Shouldn't it first have to be established that Boltzmann Brains are possible? Where is the argument and evidence for that?
  • noAxioms
    1.4k
    The claim is "in an infinite duration we are more likely to be a disembodied brain."GRWelsh
    Who made that claim? Boltzmann? Carroll? Some poster above?
    I don't see how it even makes syntactic sense.

    I am questioning why we should accept that claim of probability?
    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.

    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.
    Now you're the one making a claim. Has it been established to be impossible? If not, what's left?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.