Hi, then I have a difficult question to ask. Let's imagine that in the distant future of our universe, through the arrangement of atoms that move in empty space, various objects are formed, any object can be formed, the important thing is that it does not violate the laws of...
hi beautiful people, in this forum I feel very stupid and it's good, it means that I can learn more! I would have a doubt as I expressed in my previous question about boltzmann brain formation via nucleation (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LGMSLXkpKAofebjfi/a-terrifying-variant-of-boltzmann-s-brains-problem), I read this concept in this Wikipedia page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain) but it...
I am new to this forum even though I have read a lot on the subject of boltzmann's brains and have come to a terrifying conclusion, the classic argument which for example Sean Carroll used, "The cognitive instability" (https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00850), is not enough to dispel the doubt, his argument states that...
Hi, then I have a difficult question to ask. Let's imagine that in the distant future of our universe, through the arrangement of atoms that move in empty space, various objects are formed, any object can be formed, the important thing is that it does not violate the laws of physics (to know in detail , see my previous post: https: //www.lesswrong.com/posts/LGMSLXkpKAofebjfi/a-terrifying-variant-of-boltzmann-s-brains-problem). Obviously, objects with less mass and less complex will form more often, this is because they are random arrangements. Now, this possibility opens up a dangerous scenario, since if any object can be formed, a human brain can also be formed, for example, and since despite the... (read 601 more words →)
could you explain to me why?
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
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
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)
hi beautiful people, in this forum I feel very stupid and it's good, it means that I can learn more!
I would have a doubt as I expressed in my previous question about boltzmann brain formation via nucleation (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LGMSLXkpKAofebjfi/a-terrifying-variant-of-boltzmann-s-brains-problem), I read this concept in this Wikipedia page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain) but it is not clear to me how it actually happens? for example: does it form instantaneously or slowly? (obviously this is not the only thing I doubt about this way of formation)
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?
how would it survive even for a second or just form without dying first?
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
I know I'm scared, but so put it in a nutshell, what am I wrong in my arguments?
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
I am new to this forum even though I have read a lot on the subject of boltzmann's brains and have come to a terrifying conclusion, the classic argument which for example Sean Carroll used, "The cognitive instability" (https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00850), is not enough to dispel the doubt, his argument states that if thanks to scientific observations I come to the conclusion that at 99% I should be a Boltzmann brain, then follows that my perceptions are more likely to be random and therefore inconsistent, one falls into a contradiction where if it is true that I am a Boltzmann brain then it does not sense to think so because all the observations that... (read 1173 more words →)