Prove to me that everything happening right now isn't happening

>>8338599
Burden of proof is on you
Sage

>>8338599
This is what happen when you lose God's sight

>>8338603
Statistics is on my side, it's vastly more likely for a boltzmann brain to for than it is for a universe to form in which there are galaxies that contain stars that through physical processes create minerals and other shit that's essential to life which then form planets which are able to host life if the chemistry is right leading to me and you talking at this moment.

>>8338632
The problem is that a Boltzmann brain is just a "THEORY"

>>8338603
I don't think so.

>The Boltzmann brains concept is often stated as a physical paradox. (It has also been called the "Boltzmann babies paradox".[2]) The paradox states that if one considers the probability of our current situation as self-aware entities embedded in an organized environment, versus the probability of stand-alone self-aware entities existing in a featureless thermodynamic "soup", then the latter should be vastly more probable than the former.

For a brain, you first need an underlying universe

You can't have a brain without a universe

So you are left with two choices:

A) starting a universe without a brain
B) starting a universe with a brain

>>8338645
only if you assume that self-aware entities can exist in a thermodynamic soup

if an organized environment is a necessary condition for a self-aware entity, this stupid paradox goes out of the window

>>8338655
>if an organized environment is a necessary condition for a self-aware entity

>if

it isn't, Occam's razor.

>>8338632
>>8338645
It's only statistically likely if it's possible for a brain to form in the first place.

The amount of energy required to create conciousness is staggeringly high.

Also, ops pic is wrong. Time is a measurement of entropy. Not the other way around. If the universe started in a state of maximum entropy, time wouldn't exist.

>>8338678
The graph never claims the universe started in a state of maximum entropy.

File: 1471085682748.jpg (105KB, 400x345px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 400x345px

>>8338667
>Occam's razor.

>>8338599
>implying boltzmann brains are more likely
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.05401v2.pdf

>>8338693
It assumes that in our past, the universe was in a state of maximum entropy.

But the past is an illusion/false memory according to the model so we have a contradiction q.e.d

>>8338678
Mh I disagree with OP, but you're really not up to speed on the topic of entropy.
Entropy doesn't always increases, it statistically almost always increases. This is a discovery that was made by Boltzmann himself and quite possibly his biggest contribution to theoretical physics.

An eternal universe will have random fluctuations, and Poincarré recurrence theorem shows that it will always come back to a point arbitrarily close to the one it has right now.

>>8338763
It only fluctuates if we're in equilibrium.

There's nothing that suggests we're in equilibrium.

>>8338777
>It only fluctuates if we're in equilibrium.
It always fluctuates.
>There's nothing that suggests we're in equilibrium.
Yes, and nobody suggested that we are?

>>8338777
>There's nothing that suggests we're in equilibrium

Of course there isn't we have false memories.

>>8338777
Were never in an equilibrium, but are always advancing towards a state of equilibrium.

Through realizing that we exist in infinite sets of "reaching equilibrium" you could say that we exist in an equilibrium of non-equilibria.

Its like economic equilibrium, or how set theory works.

>>8338859
>>8338867
>>8338876
That's the fucking dilemma I have with the "false vacuum"
Fuck that boson of higgs and the top quark
But everything indicates that we will be in balance for a long time
That if we find supersymmetry or something about dark matter

>>8339256
You didn't finish your sentence

>>8338599
Why does everyone assume that a spontaneous Boltzmann brain is more likely (or less organized) than the Big Bang and the evolutionary process which led to our real brains? It seems like people are ignoring that evolution explains very well how we got to the current level of organization without violating thermodynamics. The only thing that needs to be explained is the beginning of that process, the Big Bang. But they don't compare the Big Bang to Boltzmann brains, they compare the universe as it is now to Boltzmann brains. This is faulty reasoning.

File: likeliness.jpg (49KB, 802x219px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 802x219px

>>8339330
m8 I don't think you quite understand how fucking unlikely the low entropy state of the big bang is as a fluctuation.

>But they don't compare the Big Bang to Boltzmann brains
They do, and it's even more unlikely than our current universe anyway.

I understand why you think evolution is relevant when first seeing the problem, but it is a fault of logic on your part.
Nobody is contesting that the early inflationary condition will likely lead to a life-permitting universe (which is what your argument by evolution is about).
What we are comparing is the probability of a brain plopping in existence to the probability of getting the early inflationary conditions.

You don't need to talk about advanced biology to do that. The entropy of a brain is roughly known. Even if we're off by a factor 100, it doesn't change the argument.

>>8339393
Not him.

Im a tad confused, are you saying that youre comparing the chance of a brain almost ex-nihilo from the ether to the chance of some early inflationary condition being the one that led to our beings here?

File: android.jpg (7KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 225x225px

>>8338599

I'D LIKE TO HAVE A WORD WITH YOU NIGGER

Suppose whatever the fuck you said is true. Why should anyone care? How does this affect our lives?

It seems like a terrible abuse of statistics to assume "anything might have happened" just because of "randomness."

In reality, some things are pretty damn impossible.

We don't see giant planets and stars pop into existence just because of "randomness"

[spoiler]or maybe we do....[/spoiler]

>>8339924
lol I know huh. fucking nerds when are we ever gonna use this

>>8339893
ayup
Of course the whole "brain appearing" suddenly seems extremely unlikely to our common sense (and it is).
But the thing is an equilibrium universe randomly fluctuating to a very low entropy state, just like after the big bang, is orders and orders of magnitude more unlikely.

>>8339937
I don't think you understand the argument m8. Then again OP misrepresented it. It's not about "hurr durr maybe we're imagining all that", it's about the fact that in an eternal universe boltzmann brain witnessing a chaotic cosmos would be way more frequent than big bang-like conditions.

Basically it's a strong argument to say that the universe should be finite in time. This tells us something about which cosmological models should be considered valid.

File: o0kujQHanDQ.jpg (70KB, 533x604px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 533x604px

>>8339267
>>8339256

File: Richard-Dokinz.jpg (76KB, 350x517px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 350x517px

>>8339920
oh my god, not this motherfucker

>>8340213
WLC actually stated that he prefers the Bohm de Broglie interpretation.
What a plebe.

>>8338599


"Why should we accept the anthropic principle, or indeed any argument, if it just popped up randomly into our Boltzmann brain? No argument is reliable in a Boltzmann brain universe"


I don't know much about the subject but I think this debate is useless.

>>8338667
>>if an organized environment is a necessary condition for a self-aware entity
>>if
>it isn't,
Prove it.

>>8340210
>it's about the fact that in an eternal universe boltzmann brain witnessing a chaotic cosmos would be way more frequent than big bang-like conditions.
There's no way to prove the universe was in equilibrium pre-big bang.

>>8340267
There's no way to prove it wasn't, and even if we could, it would only be because of false memories.

>>8338632
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/05/squelching-boltzmann-brains-and-maybe-eternal-inflation/

>>8339920
Meme philosopher