Member 420
203 entries
593800 views

 RSS
Project moderator:
Polytopia

Contributor to projects:
The great enhancement debate
The Total Library
Every act of rebellion expresses a nostalgia for innocence and an appeal to the essence of being. (Albert Camus)
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Wildcat’s favorites
    From chris arkenberg
    Ubicomp Getting Under Your...
    From notthisbody
    Becoming Infosynaesthetic
    From Claire L. Evans
    Greetings from the...
    From Rourke
    Noise; Mutation; Autonomy:...
    From Olena
    All Together Now; Let's...
    Recently commented on
    From Wildcat
    A real human agenda:...
    From chris arkenberg
    Ubicomp Getting Under Your...
    From notthisbody
    Becoming Infosynaesthetic
    From Claire L. Evans
    Greetings from the...
    From Wildcat
    Prepare for the Eidetic...
    Wildcat’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    The great enhancement debate
    What will happen when for the first time in ages different human species will inhabit the earth at the same time? The day may be upon us when people...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From Wildcat's personal cargo

    Boltzmann brain - paradox
    A Boltzmann brain is a hypothesized self-aware entity which arises due to random fluctuations out of some future state of chaos. The idea is named for physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, who had advanced an idea that the known universe arose as a random fluctuation, similar to process through which Boltzmann brains might arise.

    Boltzmann brains are often referred to in the context of the "Boltzmann brain paradox" or "problem".

    The concept arises from the need to explain why we observe such a large degree of organization in the universe. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy in the universe will always increase. We may think of the most likely state of the universe as one of high entropy, closer to uniform and without order. So why is the observed entropy so low?

    Boltzmann proposed that we and our observed low-entropy world are a random fluctuation in a higher-entropy universe. Even in a near-equilibrium state, there will be stochastic fluctuations in the level of entropy. The most common fluctuations will be relatively small, resulting in only small amounts of organization, while larger fluctuations and their resulting greater levels of organization will be comparatively more rare. Large fluctuations would be almost inconceivably rare, but this can be explained by the enormous size of the universe and by the idea that if we are the results of a fluctuation, there is a "selection bias": We observe this very unlikely universe because the unlikely conditions are necessary for us to be here.

    This leads to the Boltzmann brain concept: If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation, it is much less likely than a level of organization which is only just able to create a single self-aware entity. For every universe with the level of organization we see, there should be an enormous number of lone Boltzmann brains floating around in unorganized environments. This refutes the observer argument above: the organization I see is vastly more than what is required to explain my consciousness, and therefore it is highly unlikely that I am the result of a stochastic fluctuation.

    The Boltzmann brains paradox is that it is more likely that a brain randomly forms out of the chaos with false memories of its life than that the universe around us would have billions of self-aware brains

    more here

    Fri, Jan 4, 2008  Permanent link
    Categories: paradox
      RSS for this post
    3 comments
      Promote (5)
      
      Add to favorites (2)
    Synapses (1)
     
    Comments:


    Spaceweaver     Fri, Jan 4, 2008  Permanent link
    Two remarks; I am not familiar with the latest in physics, but as far as I know, the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems, while the universe at large was never proved or even soundly theorized to be a thermodynamically closed system. If the universe happens to be thermodynamically open, the so called Bolzmann brain should not be so rare, at least not based on entropy considerations. Though a fascinating speculation, putting the probabilities into numbers tells us that if Bolzmann brain can happen, virtually anything else can. I suspect arguments and theories that allow anything to happen.

    Now comes the second part of the argument having to do with the variation on the anthropic principle that uses the very fact that we observe the universe as a selective force of sorts that picks a staggeringly low probability event by the mere fact of it observing itself. I know this kind of reasoning is gaining some popularity amongst the physics community. I just wish to comment here that if there is a valid anthropic principle at all, it is one we profoundly do not understand. We do not have even a clue about a physical theory of consciousness and observation. The mental leap that we do in arguing something like: 'the observer, by merely observing, picks the universe that allows an observer to exist', is so far in any philosophical and physical perspective, that near it Bolzmann brains seem as probable as ordering a pizza next week.
    Wildcat     Fri, Jan 4, 2008  Permanent link
    Thanks for the insights Spaceweaver, however two points I wish to make here:

    The first and the most important in my view concerns the assumption that underlies all empirical evidence based observational science, and that is that “we” (a conscious aware human observer) is the typical case of an observer in the universe and thus by implication all observations that we do (or believe we perceive that we do) are typical observations of a typical situation in an otherwise more or less homogenous universe.

    However there is no evidence whatsoever to assume that the above is the case. So though I recognize the obvious fact that if we did not assume such an assumption of typicality we couldn’t have come to any conclusion, theory, or indeed realization concerning life, the universe, and everything, there is still no obviousness that this indeed is the case.

    Now, what happens if we are not typical observers, and thus (by implication) our observations are anything but?

    I dare assume that our concepts of perception/observation at present are so far removed from what an observer really is (or can become), that for all practical purposes a Bolzmann brain may very well be the concept we need to propel ourselves into alternate/possible futures.

    The second point concerns entropy and my “assumed belief” that we exist in a multiverse, to which our universe is but a small and at present probably insignificant component. That assumption allows me to assume an infinite number of observers of infinite kinds. Yet as we know that all infinities are not equal, it may very well be that we can go along and evolve all the way to infinity, Bolzmann brains included (an infinity of ‘them’ will come into existence but it will still be smaller than us), without having the need and necessity to destroy anything.

    Having said all of the above, I definitely agree with you that we are still infants in the dark, gazing into the unknown.

    But what if… virtually anything can happen?
    Wildcat     Fri, Jan 4, 2008  Permanent link
    please see here for the latest theories about the multiverse
     
          Cancel