[ExI] Boltzmann brains
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Tue May 5 06:33:09 UTC 2020
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:21 AM Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
> On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 15:55, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:31 AM John Clark via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> We have infinity to work with if Hugh Everett's Many Worlds
>>> interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct, or if Eternal Inflation is
>>> right, and if the inflationary model of the Big Bang is right then Eternal
>>> Inflation probably is too. And even if none of that is true and the
>>> universe is finite in the past dimension it could still have a infinite
>>> eternal future.
>> ### For the Boltzmann brain idea to be a paradox you need to consider not
>> so much the size of the universe (or multiverse), as the density of
>> biological vs Boltzmann brains per unit of volume. Using a simplistic
>> approach, biological brains that are a part of larger entities (such as
>> galaxies) should be much less common per unit of volume, than Boltzmann
>> brains, since the former require many more atoms to come together.
>> As I mentioned elsewhere, the resolution of the paradox is that galaxies
>> and biological brains (but not Boltzmann brains) are created by physical
>> law, not randomly, so their density is dictated by physical law and cannot
>> be easily simplistically deduced from the number of moving parts inside
> It could be that, as you say, regular brains are more likely than
> Boltzmann brains, but the problem is that in some cosmological models
> Boltzmann brains are more likely. These cosmological models otherwise seem
> reasonable; should they be rejected on the grounds that Boltzmann brains
> are absurd?
> ### Which cosmological models make Boltzmann brains more likely, and how?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat