Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 17:19:06 UTC No. 16166074

>>16166068
No kiddo, you will have to live knowing there are cosmic horrors out there beyond your comprehension.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 17:24:31 UTC No. 16166080

>>16166068
No. It's real and you are doomed to an eternity of incarnating as random creatures in a random universe for eternity. Enjoy these few seconds you have as a human because they might be the only few you have to actually introspect on the matter.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 17:28:08 UTC No. 16166084

>>16166068
Statistically speaking the patterns you notice can be explained in a simpler way using the established world model than by assuming a Boltzmann brain.
So you disprove the Boltzmann brain using Occam's razor (or rather an advanced version of it).

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 17:33:04 UTC No. 16166091

>>16166068
Boltzmann brain from quantum fluctuations makes me laugh. Every 10^10^50 years in a perfect vacuum a brain would from long enough to form a conscious thought only then to disappear.

Personally i think its totally fucking retarded , but it is interesting

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 17:34:18 UTC No. 16166096

>>16166084
Yeah but isn't it easier to just presume that literally all of this shit is just a dream. (which essentially I guess is what the Boltzmann model boils down to)

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 17:38:01 UTC No. 16166105

>>16166091
>Boltzmann brain from quantum fluctuations makes me laugh. Every 10^10^50 years in a perfect vacuum a brain would from long enough to form a conscious thought only then to disappear.
If the universe is infinite, and you agree that given enough time a consciously thinking brain can form, then aren't you inadvertently concurring with the theory?

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 17:43:19 UTC No. 16166111

>>16166105
I believe just by observing the nature of a infinite universe the possibility for such things to occur is therefore not zero. However i think this isnt the first time the idea of infinity has been stretched to include utter nonsense - I do not think a brain will ever magically spawn out of a vacuum , i do believe in quantum fluctuations however that is due to the nature of the fabric of spacetime. I just think , this "brain" is a thought experiment and will forever be a thought experiment.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 17:55:49 UTC No. 16166126

>>16166111
>I do not think a brain will ever magically spawn out of a vacuum
Why not? Didn't the universe itself do that?

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 18:06:07 UTC No. 16166136

>>16166105
This is the main value of Boltzmann brains: If your theory predicts the typical observer will be a Boltzmann brain, you, presuming yourself a typical observer, discard that theory.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 18:11:19 UTC No. 16166147

>>16166136
Why though? Forgive me if I'm being stupid here and missing something obvious (I'm a little drunk), but why should we dismiss something just because its unlikely and being spawned by something incredibly unlikely. If it's the only possible reason for something to exist, and it has been given enough time to exist, then surely it's still the only possible outcome.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 18:15:42 UTC No. 16166150

>>16166147
The point is not dismissing the logic that tells you that a certain model of the universe results in more Boltzmann brains than regular brains. It is accepting that logic, noting that being regular brains is a better model for our observations, and then using that to rule out those models of the universe, under the assumption that we are typical observers.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 18:34:54 UTC No. 16166167

>>16166126
If you are arguing in Boltzmann brain terms then there's no space, time, universe or maths to speak of. These are all part of the illusion of your illusory brain. The argument inevitably descends into absurdity. Is it a possibility? Yes. Is it worthwhile to discuss? No. That's why no one talks about it.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 18:55:01 UTC No. 16166186

>>16166091
Yeah you'd think at like 2 kelvin the brain would be totally frozen and unable to function anyway

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 19:00:39 UTC No. 16166189

>>16166074
if the universe is infinite then this thing is out there somewhere. Maybe it feeds on boltzmann brains too. I'm going to assume that it does

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 20:05:23 UTC No. 16166264

It's a naive extrapolation of statistical thermodynamics by the very first practitioner of that subject.
Brains do not work that way.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 20:17:18 UTC No. 16166286

>>16166068
Not without a philosophical or logical overhaul to the models which fall prey to them. It's not pseudoscience, it's the only rational conclusion (not that they are merely possible but that YOU ARE LITERALLY NOW ONE) on many models.

The whole point of boltzmann brain discussion is that it defeats empiricism since these entities are infinitely more likely than what we (think) we actually are.

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 22:10:48 UTC No. 16166502

If there's Boltzmann behind them maybe there's also Space Zombies that float around saying "Boltzmann Braaaiins" and stuff, just waiting for Boltzmann brains to appear so they can eat them

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 22:12:29 UTC No. 16166504

If there's Boltzmann brains then maybe there's also Space Zombies that float around saying "Boltzmann Braaaiins" and stuff, just waiting for Boltzmann brains to appear so they can eat them

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 22:26:35 UTC No. 16166512

Boltzmann brains is like the Big Bang and Shrodinger's Cat.
Criticism which show the absurdity of the idea.
>what, you think the universe came into being in some kind of big bang?
>what, you think the cat is both dead and alive in the box?
>what, you think that statistics show that brains can spontaneously appear?

I propose the Boltzmann TrannyVagina.
The Boltzman TrannyVagina is a human torso, no head, no arms, no legs, just a torso, and it has a penis with testicles and a vagina with a uterus.
And these torsos spontaneously appear in the universe (because of statistics), and some of them bounce into each other and impregnate one another.
This leads to two populations, one of spontaneously generated torsos and torsos which appear from reproduction.
And because there a difference between populations, a class system develops.
And the old spontaneously generated torsos learn how to control the torsos which are produced by reproduction, because time is a thing.
The Boltzmann TrannyVagina is to show that now matter how you retards think about shit, you will never win The Game.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 22:28:06 UTC No. 16166515

>>16166512
God damn typos.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 22:39:52 UTC No. 16166530

>>16166068
There is no way unless you assume either one of the following:
1. the universe is not infinite in time (into the future). I.e., at one point it definitely will "die" (heat death) for eternity.
2. the universe is not spatially infinite.

2. is extremely hard to assume. Or in other words, it's an extremely bold claim to say the universe (provided it's not a hypershere that loops back on itself) is bounded. There is nothing to suggest it has to be. "Nothing suggests X has to be Y" unfortunately mathematically often means "X is not-Y", and the realm we are currently discussing is so "primitive" (as in ontologically irreducible) that it's actually more correct to regard this as a discussion about mathematics-as-reality. This is not a dragons-under-my-bed scenario, where just because "nothing suggests there isn't a dragon under my bed", there actually *must exist* a dragon under my bed.

So we have to put our hopes into 1.: there will definitely come a heat death. I think this is the explanation why there will be no Boltzman brains. The number of actual brains greatly outnumbers the paltry handful that will randomly pop up over the eons in a dying or already heat dead universe. This isn't even defeated by the fact that the Boltzman brains have an infinite future to work with, because the ability for new B-Brains to be generated is an evolving function that tends towards an asymptote, i.e. the ability for new B-Brains to pop up is constantly diminishing.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 06:51:16 UTC No. 16166936

>>16166068
>Trying to disprove the Boltzmann brain
No, idiot, we're the Boltzmann brains. It's just a dumb Jewish gotcha

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 06:52:20 UTC No. 16166938

>>16166084
>Occams razor
Brainlet

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 06:58:30 UTC No. 16166944

Objection I hear is that your theory and mechanism go out the window when you assume that you are delusional as a premise—if you are a Boltzmann brain, how could you possibly have deduced that you are one?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 06:59:52 UTC No. 16166947

Wait, there are people who unironically believe in this? Like I guess general discussion about how the idea works and such, but actually believing it happens?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 07:11:53 UTC No. 16166955

>>16166084
No, occam's razor validates boltzmann brain since its much more simple to just say its all imaginary than to try to come up with some consistent unified theory of physics to explain everything.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 08:13:30 UTC No. 16166979

>>16166167
You seem hung up on the brain being made of other material things, so what if it were a boltzmann mind instead of a brain?

Also every formal system descends into absurdity, its why the base value in math is itself multiplied by itself indefinitely and the largest possible value plateaus at a value that is also itself multiplied by itself indefinitely.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 08:17:53 UTC No. 16166981

>>16166979
Math is an abstract concept, just like your boltzmann brain

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 08:25:42 UTC No. 16166985

>>16166981
Every language, communication standard, and formal system is an abstraction, absurdity is baked into everything, so pointing out when something is absurd or abstract isn't very helpful and doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 08:26:47 UTC No. 16166986

>>16166189
No. Its a common mistake to believe Infinite universe equals universe in which everything happens. Whatever is not compatible with laws of physics for example, will not happen.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 08:28:57 UTC No. 16166989

>>16166986
Imagination isn't necessarily compatible with the laws of physics, can you not imagine or something?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 08:30:43 UTC No. 16166990

>>16166985
Do you believe in boltzmann brains?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 08:38:01 UTC No. 16166997

>>16166990
I don't know, nobody can show me one way or another, non belief is an absurd paradox because if I don't really believe in anything, I couldn't really believe in bolzmann brains, but that also means I believe in nothing and if a boltzmann brain is an emergent phenomenon of nothing, it must follow that by believing in nothing I also believe in boltzmann brains through the process of not really believing anything.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 11:12:52 UTC No. 16167124

>>16166096
>>16166955
No it isn't. Formally speaking (I haven't thought this through) the world model any given agent should assume to be true is the one which explains the given facts in the simplest manner (i.e. fewest axioms/degrees of arbitrariness).

By saying it's all a dream you do not reduce the realm of possible worlds P={world|world is possible} in a justified manner.
I think it would be an interesting venue to think about what such a justification would entail, because this is in a sense the opposite way to address the problem to the above: Reducing the amount of possible states in a justified way instead of explaining the current state by a coherent model.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 11:15:46 UTC No. 16167127

>>16166068
>is there any way to disprove a non-evidence based claim, and no proposed experiment to construct it?
can't prove negatives, dip

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 11:24:44 UTC No. 16167137

>>16167127
Wouldn't you just have proven a negative if you could actually prove that negatives can NOT be proven?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 11:30:35 UTC No. 16167143

>>16167137
It's an axiom, not a proof.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 11:31:35 UTC No. 16167145

>>16167143
So its an axiom that has to be false to be true?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 11:49:52 UTC No. 16167166

>>16167124
Note: This hand-wavy formalization of occam's razor may relate to Solomonoff inference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference
I learned about this in a video by lex fridmann: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1AxVXt2Gv4

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 16:19:30 UTC No. 16167546

>>16166068
The Ricktadel routinely culls them within they're Central Finite Curve

retard at Thu, 9 May 2024 19:05:45 UTC No. 16167777

>>16166186
it doesn't have to have the same physiology and structure as our brains silly nigger

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 07:36:19 UTC No. 16168671

>>16166989
It clearly is.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 08:37:00 UTC No. 16168712

>>16168671
Except its not and comic books clearly prove people can imagine things that are incompatible or even the exact opposite of physical laws.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 12:39:31 UTC No. 16168919

>>16168712
Imagination is compatible. If you can imagine something that doesn't mean it can exist. I can imagine I have -50 apples, there is no such thing as -50 apples.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 13:51:14 UTC No. 16168974

>Boltzmann brain… LE BAD
>Boltzmann brain hosting universe… LE GOOD

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:51:36 UTC No. 16169078

So a brain made of matter popping into existence due to quantum fluctuations is absurd. But a universe spawning due to quantum fluctuations with 10^50 times more mass that also containts a gazillion copies of brains is not absurd?

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 15:32:18 UTC No. 16169118

>>16169078
I think the point is that quantum fluctuations are what's absurd, anon