Boltzmann Brain
Uninteresting theory that is not even consistent with itself, as the unity and core (the brain/a brain/multiple brains) is an organ conceptualized in the same (supposedly) imaginary or simulated universe. But in this same universe we (or I, if the rest doesn't exist and I am just simulating this preceived reality) know a brain can't recreate with such precision and consistency our (or my) universe. There are way too many variables, elements and interactions between them that happen in a consistent way, without fails. Understanding fails not as a mere optical effect, illusion, lapsus, etc., which are explained in consistent way in this universe anyway, but systematical incongruent phenomenons that would break any attempt to build knowledge progressively (development), designing an epistemology and consequently a scientific method (you would be able to create and use such tools in a simulated or imagined universe too).
Pretty much like in dreams, which are full with illogical and inconsistent phenomenons. Or like in a simulation, where bugs and glitches happen with more or less frequency.
How do we know that the things that we haven't explained yet or we need to re-visit in science aren't glitches? Because when looking at the whole picture, we know that there have been many in the past, and yet science and knowledge still evolved. Not in a linear and perfect way, but evolved (here I talk about consistent theories that explain consistsent phenomenons happening consistently, simulated or not). In other words: we don't know it 100 %, but if we have explained past glitches systematically, the probability that precisely the ones we have in the present day are true glitches is very low.
The conclusion is that this universe is most likely glitchless, and the Boltzmann brain should be able to create a glitchless universe, or a fake memory of it for the theory (to be true).
An obvious way to dodge this is saying that it only resembles a brain, but it's not like a human brain as we understand it, but much more sophisticated and what not. However, this would also be inconsistent with its base:
The theory claims that, under the premise that the true universe works in a similar way like hours regarding entropy, the probability that a single Boltzmann brain is spontaneusly created in fluctuation of a growing disorder to a local temporary order (the Boltzmann brain) is much higher than the probability that we exist in our universe as we imagine it (ordered universe with many human brains as we understand them = too much order -> less probability).
Yet in the moment that you have to justify the Boltzmann brain saying that it's a very special one, you have to admit the also obvious: you pulled that probability out of your ass and it's complete bullshit. If you don't know exactly HOW and WHAT type of brain would be able to sustain, even if for a brief moment, such a complex imagined universe with such consistency, you can't claim that you know any freaking probability about its creation. One could even argue that the probability would still be BS if it was actually like a human brain, but there is no need for it.
Keep in mind I haven't even criticized the premises themselves, only the internal consistency. But it's obviously easier to imagine spontaneously created brains (or single brain) from fluctuations in some truly true reality than actually revisiting your premise about entropy and how the universe works.
All this doesn't mean we can't be living in a simulation/dream. It means only that it's not likely and that the Bolzmann argument isn't a good one to imply it's probable.
Pretty much like in dreams, which are full with illogical and inconsistent phenomenons. Or like in a simulation, where bugs and glitches happen with more or less frequency.
How do we know that the things that we haven't explained yet or we need to re-visit in science aren't glitches? Because when looking at the whole picture, we know that there have been many in the past, and yet science and knowledge still evolved. Not in a linear and perfect way, but evolved (here I talk about consistent theories that explain consistsent phenomenons happening consistently, simulated or not). In other words: we don't know it 100 %, but if we have explained past glitches systematically, the probability that precisely the ones we have in the present day are true glitches is very low.
The conclusion is that this universe is most likely glitchless, and the Boltzmann brain should be able to create a glitchless universe, or a fake memory of it for the theory (to be true).
An obvious way to dodge this is saying that it only resembles a brain, but it's not like a human brain as we understand it, but much more sophisticated and what not. However, this would also be inconsistent with its base:
The theory claims that, under the premise that the true universe works in a similar way like hours regarding entropy, the probability that a single Boltzmann brain is spontaneusly created in fluctuation of a growing disorder to a local temporary order (the Boltzmann brain) is much higher than the probability that we exist in our universe as we imagine it (ordered universe with many human brains as we understand them = too much order -> less probability).
Yet in the moment that you have to justify the Boltzmann brain saying that it's a very special one, you have to admit the also obvious: you pulled that probability out of your ass and it's complete bullshit. If you don't know exactly HOW and WHAT type of brain would be able to sustain, even if for a brief moment, such a complex imagined universe with such consistency, you can't claim that you know any freaking probability about its creation. One could even argue that the probability would still be BS if it was actually like a human brain, but there is no need for it.
Keep in mind I haven't even criticized the premises themselves, only the internal consistency. But it's obviously easier to imagine spontaneously created brains (or single brain) from fluctuations in some truly true reality than actually revisiting your premise about entropy and how the universe works.
All this doesn't mean we can't be living in a simulation/dream. It means only that it's not likely and that the Bolzmann argument isn't a good one to imply it's probable.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario