Boltzmann Brains

[Anonymous No.9643551]

>Die
>Fucking huge amounts of time pass
>Low probability events happen because the amounts of time are so large
>random quantum fluctuations put atoms into the exact positions required to fully reconstruct my 20 year old body, but with all of my memories up until I died.
>feels like waking up healthy
>be spawned in an uninhabitable environment
>suffocate, burn and die horribly
>repeat

This is why I haven't necked myself yet. The risk is too big.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain#Modern_Boltzmann_brain_problems

I'm too brainlet to understand the counter arguments, anybody able to tell me how Boltzmann could be wrong?

Pic not related, sorry.

[Anonymous No.9643565]

>>9643551
What's the connection between this and you necking yourself?

[Anonymous No.9643586]

>>9643565

Because after I kill myself, I'm in for an unending stream of respawning and being tortured to death. It's better to hand around here.

[Anonymous No.9643611]

>>9643551
>anybody able to tell me how Boltzmann could be wrong?
Richard Feynman could.
>Thus one possible explanation of the high degree of order in the present-day world is that it is just a question of luck. Perhaps our universe happened to have had a fluctuation of some kind in the past, in which things got somewhat separated, and now they are running back together again.
>We would like to argue that this is not the case. Suppose we do not look at the whole box at once, but only at a piece of the box. Then, at a certain moment, suppose we discover a certain amount of order. In this little piece, white and black are separate. What should we deduce about the condition in places where we have not yet looked? If we really believe that the order arose from complete disorder by a fluctuation, we must surely take the most likely fluctuation which could produce it, and the most likely condition is not that the rest of it has also become disentangled! Therefore, from the hypothesis that the world is a fluctuation, all of the predictions are that if we look at a part of the world we have never seen before, we will find it mixed up, and not like the piece we just looked at. If our order were due to a fluctuation, we would not expect order anywhere but where we have just noticed it.

[Anonymous No.9643648]

>>9643551
Also relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YsjrA87Cno

[Anonymous No.9643650]

>>9643551
>>9643586
There is a limited amount of time that the universe can support matter as we know it, and thus a limited time during which such complex structures can exist.

Thus, there is not infinite time for an infinite number of things to happen.

Further, there is a limit to how long each group of matter and energy is going to have other matter and energy to interact with.

Thus there is not an infinite number of combinations to work with, even if it had an infinite amount of time to operate in, which it does not.

Thus, the odds of another you ever suddenly coming into existence are extraordinarily slim.

In the end, however, a duplicate of you, regardless of how similar, is not you. There are plenty of atomically identical objects in the universe - but every bucky-20 carbon ball, despite this identical configuration, is its own object. So even in the extraordinarily unlikely scenario that your particular molecular pattern recurs in the future, it won't be you. Unlike your past and future self, it will have no temporal entanglement with you. Thus there's no reason to think you'd share its experience or consciousness.

[Anonymous No.9643653]

>>9643551
>This is why I haven't necked myself yet.
The main reason I haven't necked myself is the chance that the Singularity might happen in my lifetime, that I can re-engineer my brain to eliminate suffering, and live as a godlike being in a transhumanist utopia.

[Anonymous No.9643668]

>>9643551
>random quantum fluctuations put atoms into the exact positions required to fully reconstruct my 20 year old body, but with all of my memories up until I died.
Your consciousness isn't connected to the specific atoms you are made of. Your brain is basically a Ship of Theseus, with atoms moving in and out forming your shape throughout your life. So if you assume your consciousness is continuous, it must be transferable to different atoms. Atoms don't even have token identity in the sense you are thinking. If the scenario you describe happened, it would most likely just be a copy of you, not actually "you". And even if you didn't neck yourself, if what you describe actually happened, and you died a natural death, the Boltzmann Brain situation you describe could still happen.

[Anonymous No.9643671]

>>9643650
How do we know that there's a limited amount of time?
There's no proof that the universe has a limit.

[Anonymous No.9643718]

>>9643551

You complete fucking brainlet, it wouldn't even be you. It would be a copy of you.

[Anonymous No.9643727]

The Boltzmann Brain hypothesis is even more absurd and stupid than the recently popular "simulated reality" hypothesis, but dressed up in the ideas of theoretical physics so it sounds more plausible.

[Anonymous No.9643728]

>>9643671
Don't ask questions on /sci/ if you're just going to deny basic science. (Gotta enough threads full of that.)

Not that I'm saying we know anything 100% for certain, but everything we know about physics and observe around us, and lets various devices function, indicates that matter is here for a limited time only, and has less time than that to be able to interact (whether protons decay or not). Granted, it's a fuckload of time, but still limited.

But if you're honestly asking how that works... The fact that most stars born do not recycle coupled with the fact that universal expansion is accelerating, means eventually that all matter will (effectively) be accelerating from all other matter at faster than the speed of light (as while energy and matter has to obey that limit - space doesn't). In some trillion years after this galaxy has merged with the others of its galactic group, no other galaxies will be visible from here, and no matter in this group will be able to ever interact with that in any other, due to it all being forever red-shifted out of existence. The microwave background will be gone, so anything living in that era will see the entire universe as this one static eternal galaxy. After that, eventually entropy will cause all the energy to run down, all matter will be trapped in dead stars and black holes that, eventually, will similarly all be accelerating away from one another in turn so as to each effectively be their own universe with no further interaction being possible. By the time the big black holes evaporate, space will be expanding so quickly that the energy released will never be able to interact with itself, and that's all she wrote.

Or so the current working theories go... But hell, we don't know for sure what 95% of the universe is really made up of, so... Still, no reason to worry about one part of the story, if it requires you to ignore the rest for it to be a potential problem.

[Anonymous No.9643756]

>>9643728
>Still, no reason to worry about one part of the story, if it requires you to ignore the rest for it to be a potential problem.

>This is why I haven't necked myself yet. The risk is too big.

You do realize you are removing this anon's reason for not suiciding?

Granted, there are better reasons, I suppose, that his fundamental instincts should cause him to grasp onto, given how tenuous that excuse was.

[Anonymous No.9643916]

A boltzman universe would be pretty weird. Statisticay, the universe could eventually fluctuate into a fairly dense solid block of semen.

[Anonymous No.9643964]

>>9643650
>There is a limited amount of time that the universe can support matter as we know it
The idea takes this into account.
>In the end, however, a duplicate of you, regardless of how similar, is not you.
>regardless of how similar,
I don't think this is true. Whatever we are emerges from physics, including our consciousness and sense of continuity.

[Anonymous No.9643982]

>>9643653
I'm sorry to inform you that it won't happen.

[Anonymous No.9643997]

>>9643964
It's your sense of self that is an illusion. Just consider that if you accept the Boltzmann brain argument for coming back to life, you have to account for the potential of two identical copies of you reappearing as well, but which don't share brains (and by extension don't share consciousness). If you think your consciousness transfers (whatever that could possibly mean), then this creates a dilemma.

[Anonymous No.9644009]

>>9643997
They are both valid continuations of yourself.

[Anonymous No.9644022]

>>9643982
Not with that attitude.

[Anonymous No.9644037]

>>9643586
You could just as well argue that necking yourself (or not) doesn't matter because your present experience may be illusory and just about to transition to the horrible scenario you mentioned.

[Anonymous No.9644053]

>>9643586
You should research suicide and fight back against the condition, perhaps saving countless lives and building a mental reserve to serve you through the coming darkness. If you are going to Boltzmann hell then you might as well armor up.

[Anonymous No.9644055]

>>9643997
The only conclusion I can make here is that the sense of individual self is an illusion, and there is only one universal self of which we are all individual parts. "Self" is just an emergent property of certain computational systems and we are kind of like processes which each think they own the entire CPU but which are really being context switched between and being periodically provided with a sense of self

[Anonymous No.9644063]

>>9644009
Does that answer questions about what you ought to expect your experiences to be?

[Anonymous No.9644065]

>>9644053
If the Boltzmann brain hypothesis is true, there is literally no causal connection between what you do "in this life" versus your "reincarnated version" (I mean reincarnated in the loose sense), because every possible permutation of experience will occur anyway.

>>9644055
Holy hell, I've literally thought the same thing. Is there a name for this?

I think the concept of Dust Theory by Greg Egan is somewhat similar?

[Anonymous No.9644073]

>>9644065
Lots of religions hold this concept based on a spiritual interpretation, but I hold it based on a rationalist perspective. If this isn't the case, then the source of the sense of self is truly the most important philosophical question that can ever be answered, and it probably can't be answered since any answer always leaves room for the possibility of oneself being a God trapped in a solipsistic delusion.

[Anonymous No.9644074]

>>9643653
This world has Jews in it, there is no way that will happen.

[Anonymous No.9644076]

>>9644055
How is this different from eliminative materialism?

[Anonymous No.9644080]

>>9644065
>there is literally no causal connection between what you do "in this life" versus your "reincarnated version"
Not the least bit true. The Bolzmann brain is a perfect "causal connection" from the perspective of physics, being indistinguishable from the real thing.

[Anonymous No.9644082]

>>9644063
You become two new people with absolutely valid claims to being the real you.

[Anonymous No.9644083]

>>9643916
This is a good analogy. The fundamental flaw of Boltzman is that he is making assumptions that unlikely events are at all possible and many they are and maybe they aren't.

[Anonymous No.9644084]

>>9644073
The more I read about consciousness and attempts to explain it, the more an answer seems to recede away from me (think of how a rainbow recedes from you as you move toward it, because in a sense it wasn't there in the first place). I just can't fathom a coherent theory: The absurd implications of pure functionalism (like dust theory, whether causality is illusory in a block universe, and so on), the ship-of-theseus argument against the importance of the underlying substrate, etc, etc.

All these seeming contradictions make me feel like I'm falling into a kind of solipsism. Like no theory seems satisfactory, and that brings me an eerie unease that only my mind is real in some sense...

[Anonymous No.9644085]

>>9644080
What I meant is that any permutation of a Boltzmann brain (at this level of detail) is just as likely as any other. You literally don't change anything by doing anything in "this life", since copies of you following *both* decisions will appear anyway. You get what I mean?

[Anonymous No.9644087]

>>9644083
That would not be a flaw of Boltzman but of our expectations of reality.

[Anonymous No.9644090]

>>9644084
I know exactly what you mean and I have these same thoughts anon

Let me tell you though: I can assure you that you are not the only mind. If you are indeed a sentient entity reading this post right now, then trust me, take a leap of faith, and believe me when I say that I am also sentient and I have a conscious mind behind my eyes watching me type this right now. You are not alone

...Am I though...?

[Anonymous No.9644093]

>>9644085
The version of yourself who diverges from you in terms of life experiences is not a continuation of your consciousness and is not your problem. They might as well be a completely different person.

[The Final Master No.9644096]

>>9643728
This anon doesn't get it. The whole point of the modern Boltzmann brain problem is that eventually there will be recurrences due to fluctuations even from a state of extreme entropy like you describe.
Unless something major happens that changes the universe forever (and not just regular entropization). Something like expansion stopping entirely, or something like a big rip, and so on.

>>9643671
>How do we know that there's a limited amount of time?
>There's no proof that the universe has a limit.
The "proof" is precisely the Boltzmann brain argument, it's not so much a proof as it is a Bayesian consideration : if the universe was unlimited in time the probability of being a Boltzmann brain observing a high entropy universe would be incredibly higher than being a regular being observing a low entropy universe.
And we are regular beings observing a low entropy universe.
This is so unlikely that it tells us something will end the universe as we know it someday.

[Anonymous No.9644100]

>>9644084
Consider that you can run a program on any substrate suitable for computation and that from the perspective of the program nothing is different, all being equally real. Our own universe could be a simulation and it would not matter if that simulation was being processed by a quantum computer or a Chinese room.

[Anonymous No.9644102]

>>9644093
>is not a continuation of your consciousness and is not your problem.
This is pure intuition and if you try to unpack these claims, you'll find they can't even be coherently stated.

[Anonymous No.9644106]

>>9644082
I don't even know what you mean by "valid claims to being the real you."

[Anonymous No.9644108]

>>9644084
Well, if something beyond our comprehension made "universes", don't you think the concept of consciousness is accounted for. That the process it took to get you the what we call "now" had to go through millions of years of change and evolution, and that advanced beings use infinite 3D space to use for our equivalent of a computer. Theres a reason man cannot comprehend infinity and it's the same for consciousness

[Anonymous No.9644109]

>>9644102
The version of yourself that goes into physics and the version of yourself that goes into sociology would not be the same person.

[Anonymous No.9644110]

>>9644106
Thy are both continuations of your former life.

[Anonymous No.9644112]

>>9643551
This isn't science or math. Please fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9644113]

>>9644090
I am in a Los Angeles apartment, on a futon in my living room I have folded down into a bed. There is a dog at the foot of this bed who was found on the street. I am tying this on an old iPhone while lying on my back, wasting my life away, shit posting for hours on end to escape anxiety. This is a living hell with moments of joy and happiness. I know it doesn’t have to be like this. I can assure you I am experiencing this as a self aware consciousness. I have no proof that anything truest exists outside of my perceived consciousness. I *believe* that you exist and are experiencing this similarly.

[Anonymous No.9644114]

>>9644112
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment
This is science and math related. Please be civil.

[Anonymous No.9644116]

>>9644090
>...Am I though...?

[Anonymous No.9644117]

>>9643551
What’s a few decades of (a shitty) life gonna matter when you face an eternity of suffering anyway, which will happen regardless of what you do.
You may as well end it all now and get started earlier.

[Anonymous No.9644121]

>>9644090
>You are not alone
That's the thing that blows my mind a little. My younger, naive self would absolutely scoff at solipsism, but now the tables have turned: I am utterly in awe (not exaggerating when I say this) at the idea that there really are other minds "out there", that other people have their own experiences! What the hell is going on?

This leap of faith you talk about is a profound concept. There's seemingly no way for you to know whether I'm truly conscious, or for me to know whether you're truly conscious (or whether it seems to me that you are).

It's like an unbridgeable gap that exists between all sentient beings. Can we really ever know each other?

Sometimes, when I think really hard about this, I feel utterly alone. It's the most desolate feeling I've ever known.

[Anonymous No.9644122]

>>9644117
These years matter because they are a chance to prepare for eternity.

[Anonymous No.9644129]

>>9644093
>a continuation of your consciousness
This is the problem right here. The very concept of Boltzmann brains seems to throw the idea of continuity out the window: There will be a fluctuation where you experience X and then Y, but there will be another one where you experience X and then Z. There's no more "continuity".

Furthermore, it could be that you literally right now are in a fluctuation. You might be thinking "That's ridiculous, it's unlikely a fluctuation would last this long/occupy so much space". But that's the heart of the matter: Your memories/etc are a part of the fluctuation as well. There's no more thermodynamic arrow of time. All that needs to happen is a split second of you reading this sentence right now, experiencing this very moment, only to vanish again into nonbeing. That's all it takes.

[Anonymous No.9644139]

>>9644100
I used to think consciousness could be explained with a kind of functionalism constrained by causality, restricting the kinds of relationships that could be considered conscious, otherwise literally any permutation of matter could be said to compute absolutely anything, and therefore generate literally every possible permutation of experience.

But the concept of a block universe seems to negate causality, there's no "causality" at all! The whole of the past, present, and future exists in a timeless now, laid out like a tapestry. Is consciousness a process? How does this make sense in a block universe? Is it the states in each "slice"?

The more I think about it, the more contrived it seems.

[Anonymous No.9644141]

>>9644129
>This is the problem right here.
So long as information does the equivalent of travel in a coherent manner then yes it's happening. Suppose our universe is running on some alien creatures version of a Game boy. The alien could turn our universe off and on any number of times and even transfer his game to a whole new device and from our perspective it would not matter.

[Anonymous No.9644142]

>>9644121
I’ve thought the same thing then I remember I am not that special, there is no fucking way this is just for me or a simulation of which I am the main/only character. But in the highly unlikely case it is and I am the supreme/only consciousness then I might be able to achieve anything if I try.

Maybe this is some sort of test of character. “My” character/soul is currently running through this simulation to see how I perform...

[Anonymous No.9644151]

>>9644139
I think perspective matters. The universe as a whole could be crystallized, experiencing no change and yet perhaps produce self aware beings like ourselves.

[Anonymous No.9644161]

>>9644151
That reminds me of this:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/time-entanglement-raises-quantum-mysteries-20160119/

[Anonymous No.9644168]

>>9644151
Something I wonder: Is it that particular "patches" of the block universe have subjective experiences, due to their "special" configurations? If so, is consciousness a fundamentally "static" phenomenon, i.e. a property of a physical configuration "frozen" in time? Traditionally it's thought of as a process rather than a state, i.e. dynamic rather than static. But a block universe seems to negate this.

[Anonymous No.9644170]

>>9644114
Here's a nice thought experiment: what if you fucked off and killed yourself?

[Anonymous No.9644182]

>>9644170
Princess, why are you so mad?
>what if you fucked off and killed yourself?
If quantum immortality is correct I would survive but might do so in a different universe, myself being dead from your perspective. I might also wake up on an alien planet restored to life if the Boltzmann thing is accurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EknD3KRtgDk
This is also a possibility. In any case I would definitely be "fucked off" and dead.

[Anonymous No.9644204]

>>9644139
This block based interpretation brings about interesting implications for me

Take for instance deterministic pseudo-random number generators (PRNGs).

The random stream determined by a single initial seed value is deterministic and can always be derived. Can we say it "exists" alongside a given {seed, PRNG} pair? Is it a platonic form? If these crystallized "the universe exists in all inertial reference frame time perspectives at once" interpretations are correct then theoretically the global static configuration of the universe can be compressed into a {seed, PRNG} pair through enough brute-forcing, where the output scream perfectly describes the universe by mere coincidence, however unlikely, because the probability is non-zero

Then in this case we can just describe the universe as one immeasurably large value equal to the {seed, PRNG} encoded as a number.

So where the fuck is consciousness, the laws of gravity, and all of these things, present in that pair? Does it understand those concepts? Or are they just coincidences?

[Anonymous No.9644231]

>>9644204
It would be like the characters in a book having consciousness. They might say "I think therefore I am" but that would not be the case. The only real thing would be the ephemeral reader with only the power to observe an endless stream of internal and external illusions.

[Anonymous No.9644542]

>>9644096
>This anon doesn't get it. The whole point of the modern Boltzmann brain problem is that eventually there will be recurrences due to fluctuations even from a state of extreme entropy like you describe.
>Unless something major happens that changes the universe forever (and not just regular entropization). Something like expansion stopping entirely, or something like a big rip, and so on.
A lone atom or particle is not of sufficient complexity to form a human brain, even momentarily. This requires trillions of energetic atoms interacting with one another. Eventually, nothing will be able to interact with anything else, thus, time is limited. Additionally, energy is required for this formation to occur. Entropy, in this instance, does not mean "anything can happen".

If expansion stopped entirely, you might be okay, for awhile, but even then the energy loss is constant over time. The fact that expansion is accelerating is what ultimately dooms the process.

[Anonymous No.9644552]

>>9644055
The idea that we're all merely specialized antenna receiving a signal from the collective consciousness, and filtering it through our individual designs, is a typical new age view, and that of many classic religions and philosophies - but it doesn't fit into /sci/, as there's absolutely no evidence for it (or at least no repeatedly testable influence).

When it comes down to what's empirically verifiable, we know identical things are different things, regardless of how identical they are (well, unless they are quantumly identical as well, but then they occupy the same spacetime and shit gets splodie.) Thus, in terms of things we can talk about in any way other than speculation, we can only assume that a future you does not share your stream of consciousness, even if it thinks it does. The only real evidence we have available to us points in that direction.

Granted, that's the rub - not much empirical you can say about consciousness. Still, it's better to assume less, rather than more, as even if identical conscious objects share experience, there's a whole other can of worms begging the question as to how that happens - or what happens if they exist at the same time, and meet one another.

[Anonymous No.9644559]

>>9644552
>that a future you* does not share your stream of consciousness
*future you with no causal ties to you, that is.

Making an argument that future you and past you are the same continuous object in spacetime is much easier. But a whole new you created from another process of energies in another story.

[Anonymous No.9644580]

>>9643551
I'm just afraid of being reincarnated as a nigger desu

[Anonymous No.9644586]

>>9643586
It won't be you, but some other poor guy with your body and memories.

[/psy/mon|0-X's|/sci/mon No.9644590]

>>9643653
An identity shard of self I would willingly identify.

However when will other humans accept/recognize the sign that such an event has occurred? Will only magical or near-religious suffice to convince?

Would anyone believe an e-mail or letter plainly stating as such?

Will we all require a butler/guide/oracle to hold our hands until we accept the new order of things? If so, what is difference between an intelligent individual willingly sharing information to promote the benefit of a foreign/alien group and a diety that will just wave a magic wand? Time expected relative from the observers perspective? Do we not already label those to believe in such phenomena as 'those to exclude'?

[Anonymous No.9644619]

>>9643586
It has no relation to your particular existence. It could pop up right now, two diverged brains. Or it could never. Suicide or not, it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.9644665]

>>9643982
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.9644678]

>>9643551
>>random quantum fluctuations put atoms into the exact positions required to fully reconstruct my 20 year old body, but with all of my memories up until I died.
>>feels like waking up healthy
>>be spawned in an uninhabitable environment
>>suffocate, burn and die horribly
>>repeat
Well here's the problem: if you are reconstructed in an uninhabitable environment, how do you think you'd be able to gain consciousness before losing it to heat, lack of oxygen, or whatever?

[Anonymous No.9645899]

>>9644542
Does the Poincare recurrence theorem apply to an expanding universe? IIRC one of the assumptions of the theorem is finite volume.

[Anonymous No.9645935]

>>9643551
>be spawned in an uninhabitable environment
>suffocate, burn and die horribly
If it's possible for random fluctuations to create you, given a long enough time, it's also possible for those same fluctuations to create an environment you could survive in.

[Anonymous No.9645949]

>>9643611
wow who knew (((Feynman))) was a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9646473]

>>9643551
There is more to your experience than quantum states.

[Anonymous No.9646480]

>>9645949
He's not, you just think he is because you're too brainlet to properly understand his argument.

[Anonymous No.9647093]

>>9643551
I'll ignore other forms of the Boltzmann brain idea.

I was going to argue against this idea on the basis that if it were very likely to happen, you'd very likely experience it rather than what you experience now (reasoning anthropically). But I'm now not sure if the endgame versions of you are also typical of your reference class. I feel really confused and wish Nick Bostrom were here.

[Anonymous No.9647148]

>>9643551
Angels guide and dictate quantum fluctuations, they would never allow or permit Boltzmann Brains to ever exist. Their strong and steadfast subconscious which upholds law and standard does not falter, it will always prevent unsanctioned anomalies from occurring.

https://youtu.be/B6p4enul8nM

[Anonymous No.9647183]

Counter arguments
0. You should have your past lives memories. You don't.
Assuming this is the first iteration
1. The universe is far far more likely to end before this happens by chance
If this happens before universe ends
2. You are far far more likely to be spawned in a livable environment (because you would need all the stuff that makes up you to be around)
3. It's physically impossible less likely than just pointing at people and saying die and having them die.

[Anonymous No.9647494]

>>9647148
But they let child rape and murder occur every day on Earth.

[Anonymous No.9647597]

>>9643650
>>9643551
time to neck yourself op
F

[Anonymous No.9647614]

>>9643586
>Because after I kill myself, I'm in for...
You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.9647619]

>>9643650
>In the end, however, a duplicate of you, regardless of how similar, is not you. There are plenty of atomically identical objects in the universe - but every bucky-20 carbon ball, despite this identical configuration, is its own object.
Yes this might be true but you're missing an important point. All those identical objects also have identical properties. If your claim is that consciousness is purely a function of the physical brain, that is, your conscious experience is determined by the arrangement and state of the matter in your body at any given moment, then if you replicate it the copy should have ALL of the properties you have. Including your subjective experience of the world.

It's not tenable to hold the position that the physical brain is the sole source of your consciousness AND claim there is something unique and ephemeral about your consciousness that can never be replicated. Claiming there is a unique "you" that exists in the now that is somehow separate from the physical matter of you that cannot be replicated even if you arrange every atom in a copy perfectly is tantamount to saying there is something non-physical about your subjective experience, like a soul.

[Anonymous No.9647646]

>>9643551
This is a basic mistake when it comes to probability.

1. Universe IS finite and actually only quite small volume of it can support life.

2. Event like "atoms getting rearranged to form exact version of myself" will NEVER happen. LITERALLY 0% chance. Not "almost zero" or "infinitesimally away from zero" but LITERALLY ZERO.

When you die, the chances that you will respawn are 0%.

[Anonymous No.9647652]

>>9647646
>Event like "atoms getting rearranged to form exact version of myself" will NEVER happen. LITERALLY 0% chance. Not "almost zero" or "infinitesimally away from zero" but LITERALLY ZERO.
How do you explain the fact that atoms arranged to form an exact version of yourself that exists right now then? You're arguing the probability of something that has already occurred cannot occur.

[Anonymous No.9647758]

>>9647619
Same reason your past self isn't aware of your future self, and that future self only remembers its past self, rather than experiencing it directly. Your experience in time is a result of a series of cognizant entangled events of cause and effect.

Or, more simply, the same reason one buckyball-20 is different from another buckyball-20. They maybe molecularly identical, but they are in different places in different times and formed from different sources. One hits the charged board, the other doesn't.

Besides, it'd mean if you had two molecularly identical conscious beings some light years apart, you'd be able to violate faster than light information transfer, as they'd share a consciousness. Either that, or one or the other of them would be waiting however many hundreds of years to have an experience to prevent said - nevermind the insanity sharing experience from two different perspectives might cause.

[Anonymous No.9647764]

>>9647646
>>9647652
Yeah, he fubbed there - but there is this thing called "statistically null probability", and it's in that ballpark, given the limited time and materials involved.

Likely about the same probability as your anime waifu suddenly becoming real, lest we get into some particularly fringe stuff, or some super science of the future artificially engineers it, for one reason or another.

[Anonymous No.9647772]

I'm not a fricken buckyball.

[Anonymous No.9647785]

>>9647764
>Likely about the same probability as your anime waifu suddenly becoming real, lest we get into some particularly fringe stuff, or some super science of the future artificially engineers it, for one reason or another.
While I doubt the super science of the future will create perfect duplicates of me, I've no doubt it will one day make anime waifus real.

[Anonymous No.9647840]

If there is a chance that a single instance of your body was recreated, why not multiple instances at the same time? Think about it OP, there is the chance that not only will you feel this suffering but you will feel it in millions of copies of yourself simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.9648342]

>>9647494
Maybe they don't care about subhumans.

[Anonymous No.9648612]

>>9643728
Heat death is popsci nonsense. Stop posting.

[Anonymous No.9648645]

>Die
>Respawn inside a heaven like world
wew, things went better than expected

[Anonymous No.9648726]

>>9643551
There is a probability that the universe will assemble a qt cat girl gf for me but it is so horrendously tiny that it can be ignored

[Anonymous No.9648773]

>>9643727
"Its stupid because it isnt immediately intuitive"
Want to know how I know you have no training in physics?

[Anonymous No.9648780]

>>9648612
Tell me more about your alternate theory which reconciles with current observations.

[Anonymous No.9648793]

>>9648780
>current observations
>aka muh dark energy
popsci nonsense

[Anonymous No.9648799]

Implying there isn't an infinite amount of yous with all possible permutations of you and observable universe existing already right now

[Anonymous No.9648867]

>>9643982
Actually an argument

[Anonymous No.9648957]

>>9648612
>>9648793
Yer breaking my balls here...

Heat death and dark energy are unrelated. Indeed, current observations and heat death are, more or less, unrelated.

Dark energy has to do with the universal expansion accelerating - and it's only one explanation for said. When an eight ball goes into a corner pocket, whether it is declared to be due to kinetic energy or invisible gremlins, has no bearing on the fact that the eight ball went into the corner pocket.

But heat death happens whether you have universal expansion or not. Indeed, the only circumstance in which you avoid heat death, is one in which the universe is shrinking and collapses back in on itself.

But the universe is expanding, at an accelerating rate to boot, so that's not an issue. Universal expansion doesn't get you Heat Death, it gets you Big Rip... Albeit, those current observations you've closed your eyes to, currently suggest we're getting both.

[Anonymous No.9648963]

>>9647148
>Angels guide and dictate quantum fluctuations
>>>/x/ is that way

[Anonymous No.9648970]

>>9647758
>if you had two molecularly identical conscious beings some light years apart, you'd be able to violate faster than light information transfer, as they'd share a consciousness

What the fuck are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.9648979]

>>9648970
Dunno, the idea is retarded to begin with - but if any two beings with an identical molecular structure share the same stream of consciousness, and thus have the same experience, and two exist an the same time in vastly different locations, that would be an obvious consequence.

Obviously simpler to assume that different objects, regardless of how similar, don't share consciousness or information, save by the usual means. Perfect duplicate of you is not you, as the word duplicate infers.

[Anonymous No.9649178]

>>9647619
The solution is there is no continuity of "self" in the first place.
The idea "you" now is sharing an identity with "you" five minutes ago is just a narrative of convenience based on similarity in physical structure and proximity in time.
The others in this thread saying "it would just be a copy" are missing that point because they still believe there's some magic property of "being more than just a copy" that isn't getting carried over. Nothing is being carried over to cement identity from moment to moment as it is, there are just a bunch of moment specific versions of a given organism's bodily processes next to each other along the temporal dimension.
And of course just being near something doesn't confer shared identity in any real / objective way.

[Anonymous No.9649231]

>>9649178
No, singular objects have objectively definitive existences throughout time. They are empirically physically and temporaly entangled, and it's simple enough to graph this out for any given object and the path it takes through time. Such objects are collections of entangled causal events.

At least scientifically speaking - philosophy is another thing - but this is how we separate repeated occurrences of identical objects from one another. A copy of you is not the same object from the perspective of a spacetime graph, for instance. Past you, current you, and future you, all have connections that would be viewed on such as a singular object, but a randomly generated copy of you would not.