Prove that we aren't inside a Boltzmann brain.

>>8404800
We can't and that's depressing.

>>8404800
We can't and that makes it philosophizing. Not shit talking Philosophy but this isn't science. It's at best science fiction.

>>8404806
What's even more depressing is that it doesn't make a difference either way

>>8404841
Doesn't have to be science to be true.

>>8404800

Ask yourself: does a fluctuation need to be the size of the observable universe to support intelligent beings?

>>8404884
Don't answer my post with a question, i want an answer.

>>8404884
No, is the answer.

>>8404800
my BBC is too complex for that to be true.

>>8404927
Your British Broadcasting Corporation is too complex? That doesn't even make any sense.

Brainlets these days.

>>8404884
To support an intelligent being for an instant?
No.

>>8404800
A Boltzmann brain with all these fake memories and experiences being created randomly is far more ordered and unlikely than the Big Bang.

>>8405109
Well, how many memories do you really have? Maybe you just have the impression of having a lot of memories in that brief instance you're existing.

But I do see people saying this kind of thing a lot. Either "the big bang is more likely" or "the incremental developments of our universe make it more likely for us to have come into existence than the brain". How are you determining this? And I think you're neglecting the central premise that enthropy is never going to decrease in the universe.

It really bugs me that this kind of shit seems to see "the whole picture" and talk about macro and microscopic fluctuations and possibilities and whatever, and then have such a narrow and arbitrary notion of what intelligent life is. Are these people just so eager to meet with an intelligent brain just like theirs floating in space? Are they taking medical notions of what life is and using it to the whole universe?

You know, I'm not saying that plants can feel like us, or that a fungus is intelligent like us, it's different, it most certainly is. But if we are just a bunch of chemicals interacting and lightning up to certain stimulus, then I cannot sustain such prejudice that the only meaningful reaction occurs if it looks something like ours. To me, a cloud and the ground bound together through a lightning bolt, a galaxy clashing with one another and two electrons 'bumping' and moving away from each other must not be taken for granted as "stupid" relationships. An atom doesn't feel anything like us because that's ridiculous, it's not like the electron is producing adrenaline or whatever, but that doesn't mean to say that there is no differece. This difference is what counts, the difference between the core of the sun and the blackness of 'empty' space around it, or the difference between watering some plant everyday or letting it dry. It might not look meaningful to us, in our partiular scale, but that's precisely why it can't be "less intelligent" than ourselves.

>>8405159
What?

>>8405175
"Intelligent life" means nothing. We are not more intelligent than an atom, a cloud or a galaxy, not because they are of equal intelligence to us, but because they have no intelligence whatsoever and so we can compare. The word "intelligent" itself can only mean something on our scale. It's not impressive to have a brain floating around in space as if it was more conscious than any other thing. Consciousness is not an advantage of the brain, it's just that our consciousness occurs in relation to this body of ours, with these organs, sensations, chemicals, at this level, in this scale, to this effect, etc. A rock is just as conscious as you are, you just don't understand how it is like to be it, because you can only imagine existence in any rational sense if you understand it to be something like yourself, with that same rational thought.

>>8405190
Im not sure youre contributing to this thread.

>>8405190
You keep saying words that I am unsure if you actually know.

>>8405175
Imagine an ant colony, thinking (as far as their intelligence allows them to think) that they are the only intelligent form of life in this universe.

They'd dig their caves through our gardens, eat the sugar we leave on our tables, cut the leaves of the plants we intentionally grow. Yet they might perfectly never realise that we are, too, inteligent.

They're on a different plane, they perceive their universe on a different scale and their senses might be insufficient for them to be aware of us.

Now go rewatch the final scene in Men In Black (the first one).

>>8405204
>>8405202
Seems that I've left you both unsure of things. If you want me to clarify something, just say it.

>>8405206
Not exactly related to the Boltzmann brain issue. The issue here is IF our understanding of enthropy is correct then it is more probable that we are Boltzmann brains with impressions we are something else. Most people agree that this is intuitively stupid, doesn't make it necessarily wrong, but it does lead to thinking there is probably something off about our conceptions of enthropy and our theories about multi-verses.

Aren't regular brains just tiny Boltzmann brains?

>>8405240
I'm >>8405159 but not >>8405206

My problem with it is that it takes this absurd gigantic universe and then restricts itself to this human level thought experiment. If a Boltzmann brain can dream of a human life, then why does it have to be a brain? Could be a cloud of star stuff that, because of entropy, could be dreaming of life? It's just as absurd, no more no less.

You know that chinese tale of the guy who dreamed he was a butterfly, then he woke up and didn't know if he was a butterfly dreaming to be a man? I've heard people saying "yeah, but butterflies don't dream like that, so the opposite cannot happen". Well, but of course butterflies don't dream, but that's beside the point because we only know what butteflies are from our human perspective. Point being: we could be anything. Or more down to the point: it doesn't matter if we are on some hypothetical more real than life level anything other than ourselves, at the end of the day we are here and we experience the world as it is.

If we were not here in this very simplistic and down to earth sense and that we are actually Boltzmann brains floating in space, then there is no reason not to think our whole idea of entropy could just as well be some form of illusion to some higher yet to be imagined place. It doesn't matter the slightest. There is no other "actual" world, actuality is here.

>>8405263
Because the question or issue is assuming that a human brain is the least complex thing required for the degree of sensation or thought we experience. It doesn't have to be a human brain if something even simpler could be the source of our thoughts, memories, experiences, etc. The point however is, whatever the thing is, we're talking about the least complex thing so that it causes the lowest possible degree of fluctuation.

The point is not to conclude that 'we are boltzmann brains', that's just solipsism which is useless unless you're an anime fan. The boltzmann brain issue is actually being used more by theists or by critics of multiverse theories and indicates there might be some issues with our concepts. Your criticism that 'if we are boltzmann brain then entropy might be an illusion doesn't mean much here because, again, the purpose is not to conclude or assume that we are boltzmann brains. That would make all of human knowledge up to this point fruitless. The point is to use the question as a tool towards remedying our current, incomplete and probably mistaken, assumptions about this world.

>>8404800
Could the universe be already be suffering from heat death and the big bang is just a fluctuation of entropy in a small (relative) pocket of space?

>>8405357
I see, anon, thanks for the explaning. I was taken by the way the problem is presented, what you're saying makes sense to me.

>>8405357

>The point is not to conclude that 'we are boltzmann brains', that's just solipsism

It kinda is though.

>>8405629
Is this bait?
It's not at all. It's considered a paradox or a problem because we begin by assuming we are what we think we are (namely, not Boltzmann brains) yet within our current understanding it is/seems far more probable that we would be Boltzmann brains. The place it ought to take you to is "given the way we see the world now, I don't have much reason to conclude I'm not a Boltzmann brainlet. In fact I have more reason to think I am than I'm not." No offense to you but only a very complacent or dense individual would stop there as it opens up a whole slew of problems.

>>8405190
don't worry about the pleb unenlightened anon
i agree

>>8405190

>A rock is just as conscious as you are, you just don't understand how it is like to be it, because you can only imagine existence in any rational sense if you understand it to be something like yourself, with that same rational thought.

Deepak pls go.

>>8405131
>the central premise that enthropy is never going to decrease in the universe.
First of all, that's a faulty premise. The law says that entropy in a closed system never decreases. There is no reason to suppose the universe is a closed system and we have no way of measuring the entropy of the universe regardless because the system is not in equilibrium.

But even ignoring this, we need to know about more about the big bang before we can make probabilistic arguments like this. Remember that we already have an explanation for how our brains got here that completely follows entropy from the big bang. So what needs to be compared is the big bang "randomly" occuring with a boltzmann brain randomly occurring. At least in this particular formulation of the problem. And we simply can't do that.

>>8405190

It's okay, I at least know what you're talking about. You're very thoughtful.

>>8404800
Our experience says we are not.
If you claim that our experience might be false then we are epidemiologically unable to know the truth. Without truth there is no #knowing# so your question is invalid.
So what will it be anon?

>>8405957
Epistemologically

>>8405190
>A rock is just as conscious as you are
>A rock is just as conscious as you are
>A rock is just as conscious as you are

Please be bait

>>8405109
It's all contained in your brain. You would only need to recreate the particles in your brain to create a memory of the universe as you know it.

>>8406081
What is the probability of that occurring randomly?

>>8406110
Inexplicably small, but we are talking infinite time and space here. It's essentially guaranteed Boltzmann brains are created even within our own universe.

>>8405957
We are in a Boltzmann brain but can never know because we are in a Boltzmann brain, that is my conclusion.

what does this make each conciousness? akin to an electron. identical in all logical respects, just in different initial conditions and states? are we all one after all?

>>8406317
Does your experience of the world makes you say that?
Do you think there are no other minds then?
How can you know you are in that kind of universe to begin with?

>>8406115
1-Logically impossible things cannot be created... there is a no number between 2 and 4 that is bigger than 4.
2-infinite space and time does not mean infinite possibilities.

>>8405159
>>8405190
>all the people confused by these posts

plebs, plebs everywhere

Maybe the whole observational universe that we believe will expand into heath death is actually inside the sperm of a 4 dimensional primordial being.

>>8406334
>1-Logically impossible things cannot be created... there is a no number between 2 and 4 that is bigger than 4.
What's logically impossible?
>2-infinite space and time does not mean infinite possibilities.
It does, as long as it operates within the laws of physics.

>>8406115
I should have been more specific, what is the probability to the big bang occuring. In other words, given what we observe, which is the more likely prior?

>>8406115
>>8406421
*relative to the big bang occurring

Why is it called Boltzmann Brain "paradox"?
It just reads like a statistical argument based on (hard to verify) assumptions, and it feels like people call it "paradox" and as something to resolve, just because they are emotionally biased against the scenario. For whatever reason.

>>8406421
Idk, there's kind of a paradox involved in quantum fluctuations. A fluctuation with more matter being spontaneously created is low probability, as compared with single particles having the highest probability. A quantum fluctuation creating the big bang implies a finite universe, or else the probability is infinitely small.

>>8404800
>every possible theory, however absurd, that can somehow "explain" something some lazy ass scientist can not thiiiink about is a valid "theory"

absolute bullshit

>>8407270
>i said any of that in my post

Brainlets really piss me off sometimes.

>>8407303
>always assumes I am trying to refute his points

worthless

>>8407303
>Makes the assumption that i was assuming anything.

Brainlets these days.

File: toointelligent.png (108KB, 357x368px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 357x368px

>>8407487
Tfw to intelligent to reply to the right post
>>8407487
meant for
>>8407402

File: plato_cave.jpg (41KB, 382x274px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 382x274px

>>8404800
>Boltzmann brain.

It is like asking why there is something rather than nothing.

The existence, the reality is unlikely. And being aware of this is even more unlikely.

>>8407690
Soooooo, we can't know nuthin?