Are you a Boltzmann Brain?

  • Thread starter ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ
  • Start date
  • Advertisement
  • Orangina

    Orangina

    Legendary Member
    I have 2 questions

    1- why did u post it in the religion philosophy section.. while i think it fits better in the science section

    2- since it is a very confusing subject... why did you not introduce the video... explain a bit abt boltzmann etc..?
     
    Orangina

    Orangina

    Legendary Member
    And oh... what is the subject u want to discuss..?...

    this vidoe fits better in the thread entitled "I find it to be interesting"
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    I have 2 questions

    1- why did u post it in the religion philosophy section.. while i think it fits better in the science section

    2- since it is a very confusing subject... why did you not introduce the video... explain a bit abt boltzmann etc..?
    This theory has philosophical merit not scientific merit. It goes against some of the fundamentals of physics and requires a lot of assumptions. While it is somewhat based on sound science, it's quite a stretch to call it a scientific theory.
     
    Orangina

    Orangina

    Legendary Member
    This theory has philosophical merit not scientific merit. It goes against some of the fundamentals of physics and requires a lot of assumptions. While it is somewhat based on sound science, it's quite a stretch to call it a scientific theory.
    yes i am aware of that

    as a matter of fact Ludwig Boltzmann was both a scientist and a philosopher.

    I do know that the idea of Boltzmann brain is quiet confusing. If we believe that an infinite universe would be in an equilibrium of disordered particles with maximum entropy. no intelligent life could exist in the equilibrium, but over an infinite time period random fluctuations would occasionally form temporary pockets of lower entropy.

    eventually a fluctuation would be large enough to form a conscious brain in empty space

    but since such a large fluctuation is improbable to form in our universe it is more likely that we exist in smaller fluctuations and hence our past is a false memory

    I was confused by why those brains are called Boltzmann brains... but entropy was the answer
     
    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    2- since it is a very confusing subject... why did you not introduce the video... explain a bit abt boltzmann etc..?
    I did that on purpose so people google it. :)
     
    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    This theory has philosophical merit not scientific merit. It goes against some of the fundamentals of physics and requires a lot of assumptions. While it is somewhat based on sound science, it's quite a stretch to call it a scientific theory.
    Based on Sean Caroll, it is part of many scientific theories. No?
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    yes i am aware of that

    as a matter of fact Ludwig Boltzmann was both a scientist and a philosopher.

    I do know that the idea of Boltzmann brain is quiet confusing. If we believe that an infinite universe would be in an equilibrium of disordered particles with maximum entropy. no intelligent life could exist in the equilibrium, but over an infinite time period random fluctuations would occasionally form temporary pockets of lower entropy.

    eventually a fluctuation would be large enough to form a conscious brain in empty space

    but since such a large fluctuation is improbable to form in our universe it is more likely that we exist in smaller fluctuations and hence our past is a false memory

    I was confused by why those brains are called Boltzmann brains... but entropy was the answer
    Based on Sean Caroll, it is part of many scientific theories. No?
    Gonna reply to both of you at the same time since the response is somewhat similar.

    Boltzmann's brains are called boltzmann's brains for the same reason Schrödinger's cat is called Schrödinger's cat. It's a thought experiment devised to show the issues of a particular theory. It's an argument to absurdity. First devised to critique boltzmann's low entropy model hence the name.

    Any theory that predicts the existence of boltzmann's brains is generally rejected in physics, particularly in cosmology
     
    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Gonna reply to both of you at the same time since the response is somewhat similar.

    Boltzmann's brains are called boltzmann's brains for the same reason Schrödinger's cat is called Schrödinger's cat. It's a thought experiment devised to show the issues of a particular theory. It's an argument to absurdity. First devised to critique boltzmann's low entropy model hence the name.

    Any theory that predicts the existence of boltzmann's brains is generally rejected in physics, particularly in cosmology
    But do you agree that the universe has rather low entropy?
    The point is that other theories do have those "patterns" for them to work or make sense.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    But do you agree that the universe has rather low entropy?
    Compared to what? If it's the earlier universe then no it's higher, simply put the entropy of the universe always increases.

    The only issue here (still unsolved) is that the earlier universe was in an extremely low entropy state.
     
    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Compared to what? If it's the earlier universe then no it's higher, simply put the entropy of the universe always increases.

    The only issue here (still unsolved) is that the earlier universe was in an extremely low entropy state.
    But that's rather common sense. The Big Bang / Explosion would cause more entropy. That's what explosions do. No?
     
    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Right, so why would I agree that the universe has rather low entropy?
    Because it's that organized even after an explosion.
    It's like putting a goat in your broken cars garage for a week, and having your old car fully operational with new tires.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    Because it's that organized even after an explosion.
    It's like putting a goat in your broken cars garage for a week, and having your old car fully operational with new tires.
    What do you mean by organized?
     
    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    ܐܵܠܘܼܟ̰ܵܐ

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    What do you mean by organized?
    Like particles for instance. The disorder is rather minimal. They seem to behave in similar ways.
    In extreme entropy, would you get such uniform instances you can group together?
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    Like particles for instance. The disorder is rather minimal. They seem to behave in similar ways.
    In extreme entropy, would you get such uniform instances you can group together?
    I don't really understand what you mean here unfortunately.

    For example, what do you mean by disorder for particles? And what do you mean by extreme entropy and uniform instances?
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    good guy this Boltzmann, i’d have a beer with him
     
    Orangina

    Orangina

    Legendary Member
    But that's rather common sense. The Big Bang / Explosion would cause more entropy. That's what explosions do. No?
    as far as I am concerned... I think scientists prefer to talk abt the difference in entropy (delta S)... rather than entropy itself

    and abt the low entropy after the big bang some researchers explain it by the fact that energy was evenly distributed in the universe after the big bang explosion...

    it is naturally true that the entropy of the universe is increasing all the time
     
    Orangina

    Orangina

    Legendary Member
    good guy this Boltzmann, i’d have a beer with him
    Boltzmann was misunderstood back in his time... people had to wait for Einstein and Planck to understand his theories

    so yea he is gd guy... a beer with him would b so entropic
     
    Top