/sci/ - Science & Math

come on, are you all on the usual religion threads ?

why do you guys hate to discuss interesting stuff ? :_:

>without physical roots ?

That's where the ideas change. I've read into the concept before but I have to admit I think it's a bit sci fi for my liking.

I'm a fan of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Brain

>>3005744
You completely missed the point.
Assume that our universe is just a random fluctuation, what is more likely, a universe being created with billions and billions of stars, containing trillions and trillions and trillions of particles, and on one set of particles rotating around another, a sentient object (human brain) is created, OR that completely randomly a whole brain is created, where the electrical signals are (accidentally) exactly the way they are in your brain now.

>This ignores the possibility that the probability of a universe in which a brain pops into existence, without any prior mechanism driving towards its creation, may be dwarfed by the probability of a universe in which there are active mechanisms which lead to processes of development which (given a starting state that is unlikely but not as unlikely as the spontaneous appearance of a brain with no precursor) offer a reasonable probability of producing a species such as ourselves.

Also

>The Boltzmann brain 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.

inb4 "Brain in a jar" solipsism.

I'm not sure if I got that all with english not being my native language but I think it's a combination of both. Given enough time of particles just travelling around, the scientific abomination of 'theroretically speaking, a person could just pop into existience because lol quantum physics' appears.

What I don't get is the possibility that I'm only product of a boltzmann brain's thoughts...So I could be a sentient...thought....that is not sentient because I was thought up that way?

I don't know if I really understood that wiki article though. And don't get me started on things in my language. At a certain point, you just have to use English material since there's nothing else around.

>>3005794
thanks for making it more clear.
but as the universes ages and entropy increases and the size of the universe becomes more and more important with the expansion, won't those fluctuations become less and less significant because the matter will be "diluted" and therefore can less interact with itself ? or the scales don't affect it ?
>>3005799
>inb4 "Brain in a jar" solipsism.
actually along with the issue of physical roots came the question whether the brain could acquire sensorial organs but I guess that was before the other explanation came.

>>3005799
in after, I suppose, because you brought it up

>>3005802

No the point is that it's more likely for your brain to spontaniously appear with fake memories and sense impression and all that solipsist dodah, that for all the sentient minds your experience around you to also exist. Of course, that ignore the possibility that there is a mechanism from which order may arise from disorder which explains the existence of our species, which is more likely that a single mind appearing randomly from the chaos.

>>3005791
I find this very interesting.

Has there been an actual experiment in a smaller frame (a few thousands of people)?

I don't think so, but if I'd like to see what happened

>>3005802
I don't think they're supposed to be the product of quantum fluctuations, yes ? more like particles interacting according to the standart physical laws ?

>>3005821

The whole basis of the idea is that any high concentration of order in the universe is a random fluctuation in a larger system with lower entropy, and their existence, despite their improbability, is explained by the great size of the universe.

>>3005816
Makes sense., thank you!

>>3005827
okay. so on this basis I want to move on to a more mind-blowing question (although very unlikely).
see, I've been obsessed with the faith of the universe and its heath death (that is currently its more likely destiny).
when the universe has reached a very high level of entropy (after most stars and galaxies have ceased to exist), we can just wait for a while (even if it's close to forever, doesn't matter) so that the universe is crowded with randomly-generated Boltzmann brains, or even a Boltzmann brain the size of the universe is generated (unlikely but hey, if you can wait forever, once is enough anyway), they become conscious of their condition, somehow acquire a physical grip on matter and decide to collapse it (like a muscle would) so that everything falls in a singularity and a new big-bang happens ?

>>3005836

If it is possible to get a new universe from one that has suffered heat death, which I don't quite see how is possible, then it's far more likely that that will happen autonomously, than for a sentience to randomly arise that also happens to have the capabillity to do jack squat about it.

>>3005846
of course it >could< happen autonomously, but it's not interesting to discuss if we don't know the mechanism or if it just is plain random, which is why I have this fantasy with Boltzmann brains.

>>3005860

Because not knowing the mechanism or saying it happens randomly is more interesting if you chuck a giant brain in there?

So it's more likely that I am brain floating in space than a real human created by evolution?

>>3005927
at least we have a fraction of a beginning of a piece of a theoretical model (more like an experiment of thought, but well).
don't get me wrong, both are very frustrating. this is an era for the universe beyond our reach and after what appears today as the "death of the universe". that's pretty chilling.

>>3005959

No, the whole thought experiment disregards evolution, and that's why it's rubbish.

>>3005959
don't be sad fellow Boltzmann brain. I hope you enjoy your piece of universe.

http://blog.ted.com/2011/05/05/distant-time-and-the-hint-of-a-multiverse-sean-carroll-on-ted-com/?ut
m_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TEDBlog+%28TEDBlog%29

TED talk that discusses Boltzmann Brains n shit.

Speaking of probability, what is more likely:

1. You are a brain in a jar in a continuous universe
2. You are a random configuration of energy that will instantaneously change, in a place where time and space don't exist

>>3006073
#2

>>3006073
>continuous universe
explain.

in my opinion: work systems and information systems should remain separate

I would point out that entropy is a measure of a system's ability to perform useful work (ie apply a force over time and distance). I think it is easy to get confused when you parallel the term "order" with "sentience".

I don't think we can say that a higher order (one which can usefully create forces) system is necessarily going to produce more complex sub-systems.

Something about it seems awfully circular.

I think self awareness requires interaction with other organisms, in a way. There has to be a feedback process in order to develop self awareness. I think our self awareness level is high due to a high level of competition for survival among the various life forms on our planet.

Any "brain" (with an appearance of complexity) arising from random quantum fluctuations would dissipate as quickly as it is comes into existence, in my opinion.

Just my two cents.