TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Boltzmann brain

148 pointsby josephwegner5 months ago

19 comments

throwup2385 months ago
<i>&gt; Over a sufficiently long time, random fluctuations could cause particles to spontaneously form literally any structure of any degree of complexity, including a functioning human brain</i><p>Can anyone explain this bit to me? The formation of biological brains was a multi-billion year climb against entropy. How would a brain form spontaneously without those random fluctuations tearing the constituent components apart?<p>I’m having trouble understanding the logic here. Random fluctuations don’t imply that any order from those fluctuations can be preserved. The higher order features like brains are path dependent on something <i>resisting</i> those random fluctuations to allow something stable to form, whether that’s an atomic particle, cell, organ, or organism.<p>IANAP and I don’t know what I’m talking about
评论 #42383154 未加载
评论 #42386921 未加载
评论 #42385740 未加载
评论 #42385683 未加载
评论 #42383132 未加载
评论 #42386635 未加载
评论 #42383687 未加载
评论 #42384414 未加载
joegibbs5 months ago
The problem with the Boltzmann brain, and the reason you’re almost certainly not one, is that if you are one then your senses have no relation to reality - including the part of reality where you read about the Boltzmann brain concept, or any measurements you can make about the underlying reality that makes you think you could be one.<p>This is the same with all solipsistic arguments, like simulation hypothesis. If the universe <i>is</i>, in fact, an illusion, then how do you truly <i>know</i> anything about the real world? Sure it could be a computer simulation, but there’s no way to know for sure. The parent universe could actually follow different laws entirely. It could be creating a ”simulation” through entirely different methods. Hell, for all you know it could be an evil demon using magic to trick us, because magic could be real in the parent universe. It’s all unfalsifiable.
评论 #42381417 未加载
评论 #42382095 未加载
评论 #42381239 未加载
评论 #42381935 未加载
评论 #42381639 未加载
评论 #42381432 未加载
评论 #42383183 未加载
评论 #42381805 未加载
评论 #42381709 未加载
评论 #42385883 未加载
评论 #42385692 未加载
评论 #42396453 未加载
kempje5 months ago
There is a widely circulated (amongst philosophers) argument against the Boltzmann brain hypothesis made on bayesian grounds. Technical, but very interesting. It&#x27;s being published next year in what&#x27;s generally regarded as the top academic journal for philosophy: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;philpapers.org&#x2F;archive&#x2F;DOGWIA-6.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;philpapers.org&#x2F;archive&#x2F;DOGWIA-6.pdf</a>
评论 #42382811 未加载
评论 #42383110 未加载
评论 #42382943 未加载
dang5 months ago
Related:<p><i>You do not need to worry about the argument that you are a Boltzmann brain</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41031300">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41031300</a> - July 2024 (1 comment)<p><i>Boltzmann Brain</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22079253">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22079253</a> - Jan 2020 (149 comments)<p><i>Boltzmann Brain</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12152658">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12152658</a> - July 2016 (17 comments)<p><i>Boltzmann brain</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=6999074">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=6999074</a> - Jan 2014 (18 comments)
unholiness5 months ago
The way I see it:<p>The reasonable things that continue happening each day in our universe would be <i>extremely</i> unlikely if we are just Boltzman brains. Every bit of sensible reality would be coincidental. The very continuance of that reality is an experiment constant proving the falsehood of Boltzman brains, at a rate of oh maybe millions of sigmas of confidence per second.<p>Now, if you believe the universe came to an initial state due to pure thermodynamic coincidence, millions of sigmas per second is laughably small compared to the chance that a whole universe outside your brain popped into existence, so Boltzman brains are the most believable thing and you should believe in them.<p>This completes a pretty direct argument: Believing the initial state of the universe was a thermodynamic coincidence forces you to believe in Boltzman brains, Boltzman brains force you to believe reality should collapse immediately, and reality does not collapse immediately. Therefore you simply can&#x27;t believe the first assumption, that initial state of the universe was a thermodynamic coincidence.<p>Accepting this is often called the &quot;Past Hypothesis&quot;. It&#x27;s spoken of in deferential terms and said that it can&#x27;t ever be proven... But to me this is rock-solid proof, with more sigmas of evidence than any other scientific discovery and increasing by the second! Can&#x27;t we just call it the Past Theorem already?
评论 #42382341 未加载
评论 #42386265 未加载
评论 #42383197 未加载
simonh5 months ago
The problem with this is that the vast majority of such brains would be a mess. Their experience, cognition, etc would be completely incoherent. Only a teeny, tiny, minuscule fraction of them would have coherent experiences that make sense.<p>So if the argument is we&#x27;re most likely to be such brains, then we are most likely to exist in a haze of incoherence. We don&#x27;t. Right now I have an experience of a coherent historic memory, intentionality, sensory experiences, all of which make sense in the instant. If I am a random Bolzmann brain none of that should be true.<p>So we&#x27;d have to have a reason to suppose that the minuscule fraction of coherent, consistent random Bolzmann brains are more likely than the occurrence of environments that generate &#x27;actual&#x27; brains, each of which may generate many, many such brains.
Pigalowda5 months ago
Extreme solipsism is a navel gazing Boltzmann brain.<p>The runners up are brains in jars and simulation theory.<p>I feel like a Boltzmann brain knowing that it’s a Boltzmann brain is too good to be true. Might as well make the god of Abraham out of entropy - if you can get a regular Boltzmann brain, why not get the most powerful Boltzmann? Maybe it will take trillions of attempts over trillions of universe births and deaths. But you only need it to work the once.
7256865 months ago
I find the idea of a Boltzmman brain ridiculous. It is impossible for a random interactions of particles form such complexity. I find Lee Cronin&#x27;s assembly index a great argument against this. Complex things such as living organisms, and brains, contain as integral part of themselves time. Not just time, as in infinite time, but evolutionary time.
评论 #42389150 未加载
shagie5 months ago
Seven years ago, PBS Space time did an episode on Are You a Boltzmann Brain? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;nhy4Z_32kQo" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;nhy4Z_32kQo</a> (this was also linked in the 2020 post <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22080393">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22080393</a> )
评论 #42382290 未加载
Geee5 months ago
I find it weird that they consider &quot;particles which fluctuate&quot;, but these particles are a part of the universe already. There&#x27;s nothing to fluctuate when the universe doesn&#x27;t exist.<p>However, if something fluctuates somewhere eternally, then I&#x27;d say that it&#x27;s possible that this random fluctuation causes a very simple computer to form which is able to update it&#x27;s state based on some simple rules, which results in complexity, i.e. our universe. This way you wouldn&#x27;t need complexity to pop up spontaneously, but just a simple thing which is able to simulate a complex thing.
cakealert5 months ago
A snapshot of an instance of you is just a really large number. A unique transition between two instances of you (@ t and t+1) is also a large number. A slideshow of your entire life&#x27;s instances is just a really really large number.<p>All these numbers are somewhere on the number line. In fact, the slideshow of every creature is on the number line.<p>Is anything real? Because being instantiated in matter is just another way of animating the slideshow where physics takes care of the transition function.<p>There are unfortunately no insights to be had in this endeavor.
fourthark5 months ago
&gt; Seth Lloyd has stated, &quot;They fail the Monty Python test: Stop that! That&#x27;s too silly!&quot;
Balgair5 months ago
I just want to point out that the time for one to randomly appear is somewhere between 10^10^50 and 10^10^69, which is is a pretty large gap. Like the difference between the two is just 10^10^69, mostly. I&#x27;ll point out here that I&#x27;m not using units. The article does, but it&#x27;s not like they really mean anything at these time scales. A plank time (10^-43 s) to the age of the current universe (10^9 yr) to the lower bound for the estimated time until the heat death of the universe (10^109 yr), all of those time units just end up as rounding errors compared to the lower limit of 10^10^50.<p>The article does not go over here the time that such a brain could last for, but given that it&#x27;s quantum mumbo jumbo, we can again assume something in the times of 10^-43s to 10^109 yr. Which, again, means that such a brain can hardly be said to have ever have existed in the first place compared to the time of it&#x27;s formation probability. And yes, that means our current universe is in the same &#x27;meh, just round it off&#x27; bucket.<p>Like, we get caught up in the minutiae of this thing&#x27;s mind, it&#x27;s perceptions, it&#x27;s sanity, it&#x27;s soul (?). But if anything the absurdist thought experiment ends as just a mirror aimed at ourselves, with the void now creeping in behind our hats. What am I? What is perception? What is time? Can any of <i>this</i> ever possibly matter compared to these might-as-well-be infinities? Oh God!<p>I&#x27;ve put numbers up here, they are very poor estimates mostly. And then I tell you that these numbers are so huge that, very literally, nothing that will <i>ever</i> exist in our universe can be made to understand that far future in which this absurd quantum brain comes out of. That time ceases to have any meaning <i>at all</i> in this not quite so empty quantum vacuum.<p>So, having looked into this mirror, I don&#x27;t know what tell you. I&#x27;m going for a walk, enjoy the season here, hug the fam, have a coffee, laugh, run, play. The universe has spared us this moment.
bee_rider5 months ago
Hmm. Is a Boltzmann brain incompatible with quantum immortality? I guess it is possible, just unlikely, that you’ll end up as a Boltzmann brain that just happens to not dissipate, right?
NoZZz5 months ago
Oh jesus H ch. no one wants Boltzmann&#x27;s brain, they would go insane.
rzzzwilson5 months ago
Clicked on the link hoping it was a wickedly funny parody but, alas, it&#x27;s just title gore: *brain*.
评论 #42380895 未加载
stevebmark5 months ago
It&#x27;s intuitive and obvious that nothing remotely like a Boltzmann brain has ever existed nor will ever exist.<p>The misunderstanding comes from the common, but fundamentally wrong belief, that an infinite universe means infinite possibilities.
评论 #42383031 未加载
smokedetector15 months ago
I dont need to logically disprove theories like this, because I experience myself in a way that you can&#x27;t argue against. Trying to convince me my experience of myself is an illusion is, in my view, a horrible case of trying to fit reality to your model. Yet it&#x27;s one that a surprising number of scientifically minded people enjoy doing, for some reason. Beats me.
评论 #42382517 未加载
评论 #42382764 未加载
评论 #42383225 未加载
评论 #42382849 未加载
quantadev5 months ago
The &quot;Big Bang&quot; theory (BBT) is equally as absurd as the Boltzmann brain conjecture, and recent evidence from the James Webb Space Telescope provides even more evidence against the BBT, by showing there are too many mature universes near the theorized &quot;beginning of time&quot; and also the Hubble expansion is off by 8%.<p>I think there&#x27;s more and more evidence that we&#x27;re instead in a 3D reality that&#x27;s the manifold (surface) of an Event Horizon. We&#x27;re neither inside nor outside a black hole, but on the boundary of one.<p>All Black Holes form from matter &quot;falling in&quot; rather than stuff &quot;exploding out&quot;, and that&#x27;s how our universe formed (as a Black Hole, one dimension higher up than normal 2D black holes we see). The general rule is that any N-dimensional reality is on an Event Horizon and will have contained&#x2F;embedded within it (N-1)-dimensional other black holes (it&#x27;s a hierarchy).<p>The JWT also just showed our universe is expanding at a rate that&#x27;s also inconsistent with our current Big Bang theory, and is off by a whopping 8%. I think the reason we see the expansion is not because of Dark Energy (which likely doesn&#x27;t even exist), but is because the surface of all Event Horizons only expands over time, or in the case of a 3D (excluding time dimension) Universe we see more and more of volumetric space forming, because it&#x27;s a volumetric expansion for us, rather than the &quot;area&quot; (2d) expansion on conventional 2D Black Holes.<p>I also think the surface normal vector (perpendicular) vector, at any point on such a manifold (Event Horizon) will be experienced as a &quot;time&quot; dimension. That&#x27;s why time is a &quot;special&quot; variable. Thus time only moves forward whenever the event horizon &quot;grows&quot; (due to matter falling in from outside it)
评论 #42383851 未加载
评论 #42386882 未加载