All of Zeruel017's Comments + Replies

what could happen to not make it boring?

therefore the matter which will perhaps decay into iron is not proof against the Boltzmann Brains hypothesis

1JBlack2y
Yes, there is no proof that they cannot possibly happen. It is a thing that theoretically could happen in a sufficiently boring universe, and there is no way to know whether our universe is sufficiently boring (but my prior odds are very much against it).

Thanks for the long answer, the only thing I did not understand is the fact of the irrelevance of the iron matter, I thought that maybe if the matter decays with iron tunneling, a boltzmann brain or other things can no longer form

1JBlack2y
Over long enough timescales any interaction will reverse, and happen again, and so on. It's just a question of what fraction of time is occupied in each state. Or so the theory goes, at least.

so are you telling me that the current laws of physics don't necessarily support boltzmann's brain hypothesis or any other object formed in this way? And if you have patience, could you also briefly list the unproven assumptions to make Boltzmann's "things" a realistic scenario?

note: from what you know, by chance do you know if all matter will become iron and therefore the hypothesis of boltzmann's brains can be denied? (source from the concept of iron matter: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe)

1JBlack2y
Current models of physics do not rule out Boltzmann brains, but don't really support them either. Even the slightest variations in our expectation of the long-run future of the universe make them either essentially impossible, or possible but vanishingly rare. In no scenario are they anything like common. The main ingredient in any Boltzmann brain scenario is staggeringly large quantities of time in which nothing else happens except random thermal fluctuations. None of this tiny little trillion year nonsense, we're talking about a number of years that is so large that it would take you many trillions of years to even read the number. Obviously we do not have, and can not have, any support for that actually happening. On the timescales being discussed here, whether or not all matter becomes iron is irrelevant. Even if an iron atom has a 10^-1000 chance of encountering a ridiculously unlikely random gamma ray photon that spallates it into lighter elements, over these timescales that happens so many times that you can't hope to keep track of them all even if you had some entropy-proof enormous computer. It even happens to trillions of atoms in close proximity simultaneously so many times that you can't hope to keep track of how many times it happened. I cannot state strongly enough how mindbogglingly long these periods of time are. Immortal monkeys eventually typing at random the complete works of Shakespeare have nothing on these lengths of time; they packed up their typewriters with the job well done long before the first Boltzmann bacterium. Then unimaginably many Boltzmann bacteria would have to form and decay before the first instance of a Boltzmann bacterium that was one atom larger, and so on until you get enough atoms to form an actual brain. Predicting the future is hard. Being confident in predicting the future is foolhardy. Confidence in the existence of Boltzmann brains requires an immensely precise prediction about how reality must proceed over unimagin

okay, but unfortunately we can't help but to talk with our human categories, so do you think it should appear for a moment and then dissolve?

2Dagon2y
Well the Boltzman Brain idea is deep into the Solopsistic corner of simulation-like hypotheses, so "we" is just as unproven as anything else in my instantaneous experience of memory.   My point is that the concept doesn't require continuity or persistence.  Experience feels continuous, but as far as anyone can tell, that mechanism is via memory and brain-state.  And brain-state does not imply that the only way to get that state is via a sequence of changes - perhaps it comes into being instantaneously by luck (or by some agency that's irrelevant to the thought experiment). 

how would it survive even for a second or just form without dying first?

2Dagon2y
It doesn't survive.  It exists just long enough for you to have one atomic moment of experience, then dissolves.  Continuity, causality, and movement through time is an illusion caused by happenstance of the memories that are part of this ephemeral random configuration.

In what sense that I'm not even wrong? and why do boltzmann's brains have a very low probability? anyway i know i have ocd tendencies but it's really hard to live with

2shminux2y
Maybe "not even wrong" is not the best way to put it. Still, I think you would do well to focus on learning to avoid self-basilisking due to OCD or potentially other neurodivergent issues, rather than asking why any particular fear is unfounded. I am not a doctor though.

I know I'm scared, but so put it in a nutshell, what am I wrong in my arguments?

You are not even wrong. You basilisked yourself, as intelligent people are prone to do. You privileged one specific super-low-probability fear (being a Boltzmann brain) over a multitude of much more realistic scary scenarios (like that you are in a coma, drugged, high, hallucinating etc). Once scared, your mind is focused on this one scenario that it randomly picked from a long list. The one once privileged in these parts of the internet was being tortured through acausal trade or something. If you have OCD tendencies, as would be my guess, then letting go of what your brain latched on is really hard, and requires learning coping techniques that have a lot to do with psychology, and nothing with physics.

Thanks for the answer! I have read all the links even if I did not understand much of the first one, of the second I understood that quantum fluctuations do not occur, even if, as I say in the post, I did not understand if the particles in the vacuum can be combined to create macroscopic objects, and what does "via nucleation" mean. Thanks anyway