Let's talk about science. What do you think of the Boltzmann Brain paradox?

[RolandCuthbert]

"The entropy of a closed system can only increase", the second law of Thermodynamics. One of the biggest issues in physics is the fact that the universe that we see all around us is at a low entropy state. Entropy is the measure of disorder of a system. We see a lot of order all things considered and yet the universe is supposedly billions of years old.

This something I have talked about with atheists but they never realized it. The Boltzmann paradox simply states through calculating of probabilities, that it is more probable that all of us are simply disembodied minds floating through an ether, with memories of these lives we lead, experiences we had, and bodies we thought we inhabited than a universe with the exact amount of entropy that allows for our existence as physical beings on a planet in the Milky Way. This is akin to @jacquesvol "flying spaghetti monster paradox". And it explains that the universe is a 10 to the power of infinity more times complex, weirder, stranger than anything we can possibly conceive. And I want to get input from the folks here at GaG about a few different paradoxes in physics that kind of show, we are a few million years from being able to understand the tiniest fraction of how the universe works. And main reason being is because we can only perceive the universe through observation. Yet, we can't even be sure that our observations even matter. Because given the tiny fraction about what we know about supposed natural processes. . . independent of God creating everything, the odds of our existence are painfully small. . . like 1 out of 10 to -140.

http://nautil.us/blog/can-many_worlds-theory-rescue-us-from-boltzmann-brains

Okay, I have one question, why isn't there a "Science" channel?

Anyway here is a "brother" who can break it down into simple terms.

From the PBS special.

Updates

+1 y

Ah. . . some of you guys are getting caught up. Please don't get hung up in the paradox. It is called a paradox for a reason. The question simply is why is the universe so unique, given what we know about natural law?

Hawking's latest theory to address this is the "no boundary proposal".

Big Neil Degrasse Tyson worked on a proposal with Richard Gott called the "periodic boundary condition".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79LciHWV4Qs

[j-squiggz]

There's no way to empirically test whether we are just a 'mind in an ether' and no other examples of universes that we have confirmed the existence of, so there's no way to test the probability when you have a sample size of one.

Debating it is useless aside from an interesting thought experiment, so we have to assume that our experiences conform to reality, as they seem to be internally consistent.

The reason we have increasing complexity here on earth despite the 2nd law is because the earth is not a closed system, it is constantly being bombarded with energy from the sun. It is true that, overall, the entropy of the universe is increasing, but that doesn't mean there can't be pockets where it seems to decrease.

Finally, it may seem improbable, but, as we only have a single sample, there's no way to learn if it really is probable. Through the anthropic principle, we can get a useful analogy with life appearing on a planet. If there is a high probability, such as life appearing in every star system, then earth is the planet in ours that has it. If it is significantly less likely, like once per galaxy, then our solar system is the lucky one with life. But, since we have never encountered life elsewhere, we don't know how likely it is.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh of course, we cannot test whether other universes exist. I am merely pointing out the probability of low entropy at this point in the universe's history given what we know. And I am not trying to claim Boltzmann brains are real. I have argued with atheists long and hard about various things. I just wanted to provide some context for my views. Boltzmann's paradox is only used to convey the unique parameters for our existence, given the universe's creation based upon natural laws.

And you are right in a way.

I am only using the word "closed" in context of what we can observe. If we assume the universe is all that there is. Which is the definition of the term. Then the observed universe really has low entropy for something so old. But, maybe beyond what we can see, there are regions that explain our observations.

But simply claiming Earth is not a closed system does not explain away our observations of other star systems, galaxies, clusters and superclusters.

[SketchForger]

I've hoped that we can determine what consciousness actually is besides the neurotransmission of brain chemicals.

[MlleCake]

We may someday do that yet. I'm excited to find out what is next, when it comes to science.

[RolandCuthbert]

Hmmm. . . seems unlikely. But maybe in the future we might be able to make some progress. I just find the physics fascinating. That is more probable that we are simply disembodied minds floating through an ether than actually physical beings living in an physical universe with the capacity for intelligent life.

:D

[SketchForger]

I think that scientific progress has no limit, even if our generation dies before hand, at least the next generation will be able to grab the torch to discover new things about our universe.

[RolandCuthbert]

Hmmmm. . . perhaps. Did you see "Interstellar"? Future humans had the capability of manifesting time as a spatial dimension. It was kind of cool to see that. They had power over time and could go I guess. . . anywhere they wished in space time. Because if you can move anywhere in time, then of course space means nothing to you. Thus, they could create the scenarios that allowed for them to exist.

It is like the current theory some atheists have for the universe. It created itself from a flat space time.

[SketchForger]

Spacetime is a very iffy thing to create assumptions to because it's heavily theoretical. I'm an astrophysics man myself and I still think that approach needs a little more development.

[RolandCuthbert]

Space time? Well, space isn't highly theoretical is it? I guess the idea that space and time are joined together could be considered to be theoretical. But the thing is that we have not been able to "break" the theory, based upon what we can observe. Einstein's theories do break down under extreme conditions. But we have no way of observing such conditions. . . well. . . at least I thought. You know something I don't? Please share man!

Anyway, I would have thought you to be a classical kind of guy. That whole quantum mechanics mess is what I thought you would be poking holes in.

[SketchForger]

Nah, I'm actually stupid, but the concept of space time is it's the ability to gage time based on the presence of light, and how we can be for sure of its existence in space based on our perception of light or in that case, our perception of time.

[MlleCake]

No, you're not stupid. You understand a complex concept in physics that many will never understand.

[SketchForger]

Science is my belief, but it is not my Forte, cause I'm an artist and stuff.

[RolandCuthbert]

Haha! Dude, you are one of most intelligent people on this board! Please share with me some of your views. I only want to learn.

Okay. Let me work with this.

So you are saying that we only perceive time through what we can observe. And what we observe is what we see bases upon electro-magnetic radiation (light, radio waves, x-rays, etc., etc.).

So I want to ask. . . what about "information" like gravity? Doesn't gravity take "time" to propagate?

Gravity is not light. And it is traversing something to get from point A to point B. If it were instantaneous, you would have me.

[RolandCuthbert]

@MlleCake You tell him Miles. Sketch is one smart brother.

But he knows that. He is just being modest.

[SketchForger]

It heavily depends on the theory of gravity, as opposed to both Einsteins and Newtons conflicting theories. To explain Einsteins theory, imagine a blanket with a glass cup. The glass is filled halfway with water. Now lift up the corners of the blanket to meet the top of the water. The depression created in the blanket by the glass would represent gravity's affect on space, rather than gravity's affect on matter, making gravity not a tangible force, because the matter is what separated the space, creating gravity.

[SketchForger]

Meaning gravity isn't really a pull, but rather a push towards matter.

[RolandCuthbert]

Ah. . . excellent!

But Einstein's theory of gravity we know is at least incomplete if not incorrect, because it does not translate to the quantum world. Einstein's theory of gravity is a better description of gravity than Newton's. It predicts behavior of planetary orbits more precisely. It explains gravitational lensing, etc.

But let's take your analogy at face value. Let's just say the sun is a big disturbance of space causing this groove for the earth to orbit in, just like Einstein said.

What would happen if the sun were removed? Would the earth fly off immediately in the direction of momentum?

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh I understood. Space without matter is perfectly flat. Matter disturbs it. The more massive the object the more massive the disturbance. While we are busy riding this groove in space caused by the sun. . . the sun has its own almost infinitely small groove that it wobbles on, caused by the earth.

[SketchForger]

Let's apply your hypothetical in the sense that it would take a lot of force for the sun to miraculously disappear. This amount of force would definitely accelerate a rotational period, (also killing all life on the planet) I'm no expert regarding Quinto mechanics, but the amount of force proportional to the sun's mass would surely exceed that of the earths, or even the surrounding planets.

[SketchForger]

Quantum*

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, humor me. Let's say I am Superman's granddad. I am 900,000 times stronger than him. And I go to the sun and kick that son of a gun out of the solar system faster than the speed of light. Direction. . . north. . . with respect to the Earth.

I want to know what happens to the orbit of the earth and all of the planets according to your theory.

[SketchForger]

(you can't kick gas, but I'll humor you) According to that theory, the amount of force would cause ripples in spacetime called gravitational waves, these waves (provide the force) would cause indescribable disturbances in the orbit of our original sun, putting the earth on a collision course with pluto, and causing Saturn and Jupiter to collide, creating more waves. I don't know much about what else could happen, I'm not too Familiar with the principles of colliding waves but it would certainly affect our asteroid and Kepler field.

[RolandCuthbert]

Yes, that is what I thought. But at what speed? Don't gravitational waves take "time" to traverse "space"?

That what I mean by space time. Any movement through space is movement through time. The earth would leave that orbit at precisely the time "we" saw the sun get kicked out of the Solar System.

And give me a break. I got a very special foot.

:D

So while, it is not described as a force in Einstein's equations. . . it is a wave form that must traverse media. The media of time and the media of space to move from point A in space time to point B in space time.

[SketchForger]

Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light

[RolandCuthbert]

Right, that's the same speed as information. Since no information can travel faster than the speed of light. What can be known always has the same barrier of time as it does with space.

If you found a way to remove the one barrier, "time". Why wouldn't that also remove the other barrier of space. If you can go to any when, then you can go to any where. And vice versa.

Not that, that prove conclusively my view.

Just saying, you know.

But that's why I think that is true. Independent of all the other stuff.

[peachblossomluck]

This concept is very existential crisis provoking. I do understand the universe is always expanding. Therefore, it's going to remain just or even vastly beyond our reach of understanding. It's already bigger than our limited self concept and

[peachblossomluck]

there is no way to truly get closer to that understanding without losing part of what makes us function. I am going to use the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible eating from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge. They understood from that point on but society was ruined and in turmoil since. Have you seen that movie The Mist based on the Stephen King novel? These scientists tore open a hole in other dimensions and things from there destroyed life as we know it in ours.

[RolandCuthbert]

Never saw "The Mist". I read the book however. It was decent. But I agree with you about our understanding of the universe. In reality, it probably is beyond our ability to figure out.

[peachblossomluck]

It always will be hopefully.

[MlleCake]

There is no proof really of any reality except that we live it and experience it. But, that also limits how much reality we can know, so then we do have to trust how other people have arrived at their conclusions of reality.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I am not saying this to simply be contrarian. After all, this theory was not born in some church or mosque. It comes from physics and from scientists who challenge conventional wisdom. There are about 26 individual constants that have to be pretty precise for our universe to be. The mass of proton, the strength of the gravitational force, the speed of light, etc.

Of course, the amount entropy and the cosmological constant are among the most troubling. The odds of this universe coming into being, just with the problem with the cosmological constant alone are 1 in. . .10. . . with 120 zeros behind it.

That's not even considering the other perfectly tuned constants of which again. . . are about 26 in total.

[MlleCake]

Admittedly so.

[j-squiggz]

We don't know the odds of any or all of those constants being what they are. It may be the case that it isn't possible for them to be any different, and even if there are multiple universes they might be the same, or at least some. It may also be the case that you are right and that the odds are incredibly long, but as we have nothing to compare our universe to, we don't know

[ZanyInternetName]

I've never seen proof that this reality even exists.

[RolandCuthbert]

@j-squiggz Oh, we know the odds of the cosmological constant. It was calculated.

it requires that the cosmological constant measured today, t_{U}, be {\Lambda} ~ t_{U}^(-2) ~ 10^(-122), as observed.

A simple man like me just uses a 1 divided by 10 with 122 zeros behind it. That's how precise that force has to be. And it has to be present from the earliest microseconds of existence.

[RolandCuthbert]

I was hoping for some more women.

:(

[j-squiggz]

That only tells us the precision the number is measured to, it does nothing to show whether it is possible for there to be another value

[MlleCake]

@j-squiggz Precisely.

[RolandCuthbert]

@j-squiggz Hmmmm. . . but that is not really scientific. This is a non-zero number. Why is this value so low and so precise? And this pressure is present at the first micro-seconds of existence.

Science has basically maintained this stuff happened because of randomness. Well, we are the greatest lottery winners in the history of any multi-verse, imagined or not. Remember, that number had to be between zero and 1.

And understand how rare this occurrence would be. It would be much easier for me to pick an atom out of all the atoms in the observable universe. . . shuffle it back into the mix. And then have you pick out the one I marked.

There are only about 10 to the power of 82 atoms in the observed universe.

www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/

Science is unlike other disciplines. It must explain why this rare occurrence happened. That's why "many worlds" was invented.

[j-squiggz]

We have no idea if this is a rare occurrence though, just because it is a very precise number doesn't mean it is a random number. It might be the case that all universes in the cosmos share the exact same cosmological constant, but since we don't have other universes we can compare ours to, we don't know

[j-squiggz]

Probability cannot be determined from a sample size of one

[RolandCuthbert]

@j-squiggz Exactly, that's why "many-worlds" was invented. Science was looking for an explanation to explain this. But again, we are having a discussion that is not in the realm of science. You just tried to use deductive reasoning. We are here, therefore this explanation has to be true.

Two physicists turned the physics world on its head by asking, if we are only going to use deductive reasoning to solve this puzzle, why isn't it just as scientific to say we are just a bunch of disembodied brains floating through an ether?

[j-squiggz]

I was simply pointing out that asserting a probability is irrational when you can't possibly calculate probability with a sample size of one.

Also you are slightly misunderstanding the anthropic principle. It demonstrates that, whatever the true probability is, we know it happened at least once, as we exist in that universe. It doesn't give us a probability, it just shows that it is at least possible.

[j-squiggz]

It's a lot like if some people we living on an isolated island. They wouldn't be able to tell if the land they are on is all there is, or if there is a lot just past the horizon, or anywhere in between. But they would be able to tell that it is possible for there to be dry land because they are standing on it

[RolandCuthbert]

@j-squiggz But I understand the anthropic principle all too well. The problem is that it is not science.

As Penrose said, "It tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."

If it seems plausible that our universe was created with these specific constants set, then any theory of creation becomes plausible. Because there is no need to provide any scientific evidence. That's the point of Boltzmann's brains.

The natural laws we observe in the universe give us the probability for the rare occurrence our universe. I am not saying those are the laws that created the universe. Maybe there were different laws present where this isn't occurrence would not be rare. But it is scientific journey to discover those laws. To simply say, the universe happened and everyone should accept it. That isn't science. That's belief. Or better yet, faith.

[RolandCuthbert]

@j-squiggz I guess we are simply repeating ourselves. I am not saying your logic isn't rational. I am saying it isn't science. People on an island can muse about many different possibilities regarding their existence. But it would be wrong to claim their musing are science-based, no matter how rational we think they are.

[Jmcmanning]

There is a science channel and also a discovery channel (I know because I watch them)

[RolandCuthbert]

And everytime someone says that, it is hilarious.

:D

[Jmcmanning]

how so, have you never watched the science or discovery channel? I watch my shows about space on those channels or whatever else that may capture my attention. Personally I like books that I had from when I was in school since I am an an aeronautical fanatics but hey, I get my thrills about science where I can find about the topics I desire.

[RolandCuthbert]

I get you. I watch the two channels all the time. But I was asking in context of GaG. There should be a category dedicated to science.

But maybe this isn't that kind of forum? I dunno.

I have to say @jmcmanning, you are an absolute treasure.

Thanks for posting.

[Jmcmanning]

I do think GaG needs more categories anyway. I love aviation and that would be perfect for science or transportation!

[ladsin]

I hadn't heard of this idea before, but it seems to have some similarities to the hard solipsist (brain in a vat) position.

I don't have an answer to the hard solipsist position, and in much the same way I don't have a great answer to this question.

I think both make flaws in the same way though. I have no reason to think that disembodied minds are possible. I've seen no evidence for a mind outside of a brain. Additionally both are, as far as I an tell, unfalsifiable. That is not a sign of the strength of an argument.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, yes, it is a kind of solipsistic. But it really isn't a debate about whether or not disembodied brains exist. Boltzmann actually did not make the argument for brains. His example was basically he could calculate a higher probability for all of the oxygen molecules to coalesce in one corner of a room of a given size, than observing low entropy in the universe almost 14 billion years after its creation.

[ladsin]

I saw that he didn't but in regards to the idea I still see no reason to believe in a mind apart of a brain. XD

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh that is based upon the probability that random quantum fluctuations would produce a disembodied brain long before it produced a universe where you and I are talking about the paradox in an online forum.

And the physicists who calculated the probability explain that it was on an order of magnitude greater. Because a disembodied brain wouldn't need to be as big as the observable universe.

[ladsin]

What's the probability of a disembodied brain coming into existence?

What's the probability of a mind coming into existence at all?

This "probability" sounds like a simple assertion. I have no idea how they'd be able to determine these probabilities. Again, I'm not aware of a single disembodied mind/ brain/ etc. Perhaps eventually AI could be considered such, and that will lead to some interesting questions, for example if we are actually a form of AI, but this doesn't seem similar to me.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, of course they have their detractors. Lasdin, I am sorry that I lead you down that path. I just wanted to put my views into context. These guys took Boltzmann calculations for low entropy at this point in universal development. They postulated that the probability a quantum fluctuation could produce billions upon billions of disembodied brains was more likely than it producing the observable universe.

Their detractors are many. But physicists like Hawking believe you had to deal with these issues around the probability of this universe existing.

He believes he has addressed such issues with his latest "theory of everything".

The no boundary proposal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry_pILPr7B8

[ladsin]

Hmm? I wasn't upset if you think I was, I read a little bit about it and garnered that he didn't come up with the idea, but people used his work to come up with it.

I understand the general idea. "X is more probable than Y." But I see no justification for X. In this case I don't see any justification for a single disembodied mind. You have to provide evidence for that, you can't just posit things into existence, and say "ah, they're more probable."

How did you come to this determination?
What are the two probabilities you are comparing?

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh the idea that the universe should be described quantum mechanically goes back a long, long way. But this is why Hawking is the greatest living physicist in my opinion.

No one before him connected classical physics to quantum mechanics.

When he did it, the door opened to explanations as to how a process in the quantum world could affect the classical world. Hawking explained why a black hole could radiate energy. So taking this idea back to the singularity that supposedly existed at the beginning of the universe, he could describe a state where that singularity did not have to exist.

So instead of a point singularity and also with understanding that time and space would behave much differently in the quantum world than they do in the classical world, he could describe a state of a spatially infinite, but "tiny" universe that is "fuzzy". This state existed without time, then for some reason expanded. As it expanded, time detached and became distinct. no longer "fuzzy".

[RolandCuthbert]

I am sorry that I misled you. It isn't my theory. And actually, it is not a theory. It is a paradox like Schrodinger's cat.

The issue is based upon what we know about natural law and what we can observe. Based upon the our understanding of quantum fluctuations, it would be easier for a quantum fluctuation to create a Boltzmann brain that thinks it lives in a physical universe than the observable universe we think we live in. Two physicists put the paper together, peer-reviewed. Again, it isn't a theory. It is described as a paradox.

You can download the paper here;

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405270

[ladsin]

You haven't misled me... I don't know why you think that you have.

I'm certainly not a physicist so I can't deal with their mathematical models or anything of that nature, and I'd never presume to even try.

My issue has still not been addressed. "it would be easier for a quantum fluctuation to create a Boltzmann brain that thinks it lives in a physical universe than the observable universe we think we live in."
My question is the same as it's always been. How do you even know that a disembodied brain can exist?
Just to show that this is the same question from the beginning, "I have no reason to think that disembodied minds are possible. I've seen no evidence for a mind outside of a brain."

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't know how to say this a different way Lasdin. This is a paradox. This is not a theory. There is no theory with mathematical proof for the Boltzmann brain. You won't find any suggested experiment or testable hypothesis for it.

Like Schrodinger's cat. . . there is no experiment where you can prove that the cat moves into superposition and is simultaneously alive and dead because of the collapse or not of a wave function.

Because you can't construct the experiment. There is no way to test if you are a Boltzmann brain. There is no way to test if Schrodinger's cat becomes twins inside the box with one dead and one alive.

The suggestion comes from the probabilities concerning us living in a universe with enough order to form our hands and feet. The probability is much higher that a disembodied brain only thinks it lives in a universe where it has hands and feet.

Boltzmann was a genius at statistical mechanics. This is about his calculations.

[ladsin]

I've never had a person ask me if I'm a Schrodinger cat though XD

[RolandCuthbert]

Lasdin, I don't follow that.

But anyway there is no testable hypothesis. And we have gone several posts without talking about the point Boltzmann's paradox was trying to illuminate.

[ladsin]

I can't say anything about it. I'm not a physicist, nor am I aware of how to reconcile the quantum and relativity.

If someone makes the proposition that they're or I am a Boltzmann brain I'll point out why I don't think they're justified in that assertion. If someone asks if I think I am I'll say why I don't.

[RolandCuthbert]

Then what is your problem with the paradox? It is insulting to you because the paradox suggests that your entire experience could be "fake"? I can see it unsettled you.

But maybe that wasn't the point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVQCgYz-LaE

[ladsin]

I'm not insulted or unsettled 😂

Am I coming across that way?

[RolandCuthbert]

Absolutely. You keep trying to find someone who is going to prove Boltzmann's brains exist. You won't find that person in the scientific community. First you talked to me as though I formulated this, knowing how much I rely on research and study. I downloaded papers and read them. I don't pull crap out of the sky to just antagonize people here. Then the fascination with this as some kind of proof as though someone had conducted an impossible experiment to prove something that cannot be proven.

The authors of the paper, won recognition because they took "many worlds" to task and they said if we have to live with "many worlds" as real science, then guess what. . . Boltzmann's brains is real science also.

And this debate has raged on since 2004 until present day. Most physicists accept their premise. That science has to get back to being science.

Hence Hawking's "no boundary proposal" and Tyson/Gott "periodic boundary condition".

[ladsin]

Are you talking about, "Hmm? I wasn't upset if you think I was, I read a little bit about it and garnered that he didn't come up with the idea, but people used his work to come up with it.

I understand the general idea. "X is more probable than Y." But I see no justification for X. In this case I don't see any justification for a single disembodied mind. You have to provide evidence for that, you can't just posit things into existence, and say "ah, they're more probable."

How did you come to this determination?
What are the two probabilities you are comparing?"

This is the only time I said "you" and I thought it was quite obvious that "you" was a generic phrase as every other time I explained my issue I just stated:
What's the probability of a disembodied brain coming into existence?

What's the probability of a mind coming into existence at all?

[RolandCuthbert]

Sorry my friend. You are simply barking at a tree at this point. I told you this is a paradox. And you are still looking for someone who will argue that a Boltzmann brain exists.

Good luck with finding your adversary and winning your argument.

I explained why the paper was written. I explained what the authors of the paper were trying to do. And there are thousands of theories on the creation of the universe. You apparently only have an issue with two. Religion and now Boltzmann's brains.

Which was exactly the point of the paper.

[ladsin]

Yeah, I think that you're not actually listening to me on this one buddy. No worries. Have a good one.

[RolandCuthbert]

Lasdin, I read all of these posts thoroughly. And you keep wanting me to provide evidence. There is no evidence for Boltzmann's brains. Did you even read the paper?

These guys said, you can't claim theories that have no testable hypothesis are scientific.

Again, that is the point. I don't know what else to say.

[ladsin]

No. I'm not asking you for evidence.

[RolandCuthbert]

Then talk with this guy;

"How do you even know that a disembodied brain can exist?"

[ladsin]

This is becoming a real problem with talking to you. I already addressed this. Do you bother to read what I write, or are you just looking for buzz words? I'm increasingly coming to the understanding that you're either being dishonest or just trying to get a rise out of me.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I certainly have not tried to get a rise out of you. But you are angry because I don't fall for your passive aggressive strategy.

You asked for proof of Boltzmann's brains, several times. Which of course has nothing to with the point of the paradox. Only then to claim you never asked for proof.

So what happens with you in discussion after discussion is because you keep claiming you are being misunderstood, we focus on a conversation about syntax and grammar, rather than focusing on the topic at hand.

You never talked about the point of the paradox. And you are going to use any method you can to avoid talking about it while simultaneously attacking the idea.

That's fine.

Do you. But don't expect me to fall for it.

[ladsin]

Right.
Good day

[Soteris]

To start with the odds of something happening is partially irrelevant since we are the product, not the "ingredients" which means that however unlikely something is to happen we exist so it has already happened with 100% probability.

Now, if we are disembodied minds floating through space or creatures of flesh and blood inhabiting a spec of dust we call "earth" that is another question entirely.

As for the entropy question it requires a perspective. Is billions of years a long time for entropy to increase? How much would we expect it to increase by? Also since you can fuel order in one area by increasing disorder in another how long could pockets of order be sustained for?

Also the concept of "order" and "disorder" is also a bit deceptive since that is not entirely how the system works.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, this is based upon what we can observe. Sure. . . regions of the universe that are beyond our reach may resolve this issue of entropy. But that would be no different than the "Many Worlds" theory, in which there is an infinite multiverse. And it conveniently explains why we exist. But there is no test for it because there is no way to contact any of these other universes.

So based upon what we can see and upon what we know about natural law, a physicist way back created the equations that show just how special this universe would have to be.

I am so tired now man. I am sorry.

Can I have Sir Roger Penrose explain this. Just start at 2:00. He talks about just how lucky this universe would have to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvV2Xzh11r8

[Soteris]

Yeah but that is like saying the lottery money is lucky to be given out to a lottery winner. The lottery money is ALWAYS given to the lottery winner. There was never any luck involved at all. The "specialness" of the big bang is also not all that impressive since presumably any big bang would produce a similar, yet not exact result. As for the disorder that is fueling our current order here on earth that would be our sun which is turning lighter elements which are highly ordered into Iron which is highly disordered and in turn letting everything around it keep its own ordered state.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, that's fine. If you want to just live with that. But that isn't very scientific. Physicists want to explain or at least should attempt to explain how natural law is responsible. And there just isn't any physicist out there who believes in that kind of improbable occurrence.

That's why the Boltzmann paradox was used. It was an illustration of just how rare this occurrence would be. And the actual Boltzmann comparison is from his equations is. . . and I quote, it is more likely that you could walk into a room and suddenly not be able to breathe, because all of the oxygen molecules had decided to coalesce in one corner of the room.

A physicist. . . a good one, will never accept an occurrence with that statistical probability as being a basis for the theory of everything.

[Soteris]

We dont know the cause of the universe though, we simply know what happened a fraction of a second after that. Big bang is not a theory for how the universe was created but for the expansion that the universe experienced since.

As for timescales and probabilities before our existence and in theories such as multiverses that is a whole other kettle of fish. If you existed for eternity and went into rooms through doors for eternity then you will experience an infinite number of rooms where the oxygen is in the corner. Improbable odds are only relevant for finite existences and honestly its just as likely that the oxygen is in any given "normal" configuration as it is in an unusual configuration such as stuffed in a corner because all configurations are extremely unlikely but it has to be one.

[RolandCuthbert]

Okay, I would agree that the Big Bang is not a theory of creation. Because it can't explain what banged or why it banged.

But on the comparison. This is only to explain how rare this occurrence would be. It is possible. But only in the sense that truly anything is possible. An occurrence of one in a googplex is possible. But not many people would consider it a realistic chance.

A googolplex is the number 10googol, or equivalently, 10. Written out in ordinary decimal notation, it is 1 followed by 10100 zeroes, that is, a 1 followed by a googol zeroes.

[Soteris]

Sure we can feel a bit special since such a specific set of circumstances had to occur for us to have a livable universe but again that is without knowing how likely it actually is and how many failed tries there was until a successful universe was created. Also since we require a successful universe to exist in we would always find ourselves inside such a universe and it has nothing to do with luck.

[RolandCuthbert]

I understand the reasoning. That reasoning is not scientific. You can call it religious. You can call it philosophy. But you can't claim you have proven this through the scientific method.

It is just a belief.

[Soteris]

Sure, we can't prove the odds through a scientific method since we know too little about how to create universes.. so far.. not to say we know nothing but our observation sample of one is certainly problematic.

That said we can make existential scientific deductions. 'I think, therefore I am' sort of things. That is where our, and the universes existence becomes important since without either we would not be here to make that deduction in the first place. You can't say it is too low of a probability to happen because it already has happened. If we had a larger sample size we could try make logical deductions on which scenario is more likely but even the most obscure possibility could have lead us to this moment.

[RolandCuthbert]

I guess maybe I did not explain the paradox correctly. You are saying this deduction is valid.

Boltzmann brain paradox;

It is more likely that a disembodied brain arose out of quantum fluctuations with the experience of having lived in a physical universe. . . than quantum fluctuations creating this particular universe.

So using "deductive reasoning", it is far more likely that these extremely small fluctuations at the beginning of spacetime produced a disembodied brain, because a brain is much smaller than the observable universe. Even trillions of disembodied brains would be much smaller.

[Soteris]

It is quite the stretch to claim that "we" are more likely to be Boltzmann brains because that requires a degree of understanding of universes that we simply dont have. Also the universe itself is not necessarily that remarkable in the first place. We dont know if that particular form of arrangement is required to create a universe or if any number of infinite arrangements would work just as well and also depending on how you consider the Boltzmann Brain, as in the complexity of the simulation, that might contain just as much if not more order than the universe itself to accomplish the same thing.

[RolandCuthbert]

You don't think it is stranger to claim this universe existing as a physical reality is more probable than a Boltzmann brain. . . with no scientific evidence to support that point?

Deductive reasoning is not science. The scientific method uses testable hypotheses.

Saying this universe just happened is no more scientific than looking into the sky and claiming the sun revolves around the earth. We know this not to be true because we used science to reveal the truth. But the people who made the claim the sun revolved around the earth were only using what they thought to be logical assumptions.

Logical assumptions and science are two totally different things. Science many times, is counter intuitive.

[Soteris]

Deductive reasoning can be done scientifically. It might not be correct but it at the very least has a leg to stand on. In truth the furthest we have gotten is "I think, therefore I am." Everything else is based on a certain level of trust that what we are observing is at least partially right, some of the time. If everything we see and experience is completely fabricated then there is really nothing we can do since we do not have a relationship with reality anymore.

Making that small leap of faith we can progress to evaluate the world and how likely it is to be for example artificially created in a simulation. Things like scale, time-frame, purpose and most importantly inconstancy. Assuming what we see is correct then the universe should at the very least be fully simulated and have run in real time throughout big bang until now. There are also no signs we were specifically created and just a product of chance which brings questions of "why".

[Soteris]

Lastly simulations have the inherent problem of being able to break its own rules at any time. For a simulation the speed of light as an example is just an arbitrary number or E=MC^2 being merely a suggestion. That there are no ways we have found to abuse the natural laws so far speaks volumes of how hard it would be to create a simulation so free from bugs.

While the possibility exists everything we observe points to our universe being real as opposed to simulated. It would be much harder to create a simulation of this universe than it would be to create the universe itself.

[RolandCuthbert]

Why do I have to worry about any of these questions? I can use the same reasoning you are using. The simulation theory works because we observe the speed of light to be what it is. We observe the constants to be what they are. Why do I have to explain why the laws are what they are. You certainly don't. And in fact, you don't even think you have to try.

And we already talked about how hard it is to create this physical universe. You do not accept it was hard. So why would a simulation be harder?

That actually does not make any sense.

[Soteris]

What I am saying is that if its a simulation then the limits of the simulated universe is bound to be much lower than what the simulation can actually produce. It is like how a computer can easily produce a faster than light object since its just a logical object and not something constrained by actual physics.

Creating something is much easier than to create a simulation of something because physical laws takes over and do it for you where as in a simulation you need to do the job of physical laws yourself.

[RolandCuthbert]

No, that does not follow. We are talking about a disembodied mind, thinking there is a physical universe with these laws and constants. Somehow you extrapolated that this is a simulation based upon "something". There is no something that this is based upon. And this is just another "theory" created to fit with our observations rather than coming up with the physics that could produce this universe.

That is the point of Boltzmann's brains.

[Soteris]

And my point is that the enemy of all things simulated is consistency. The very argument of a Boltzmann's brain is that it has somehow been able to emulate the world we experience right now but keeping it coherent is about as hard as it is to break the physical laws in a real world. Its basically impossible. In other words the small flaws inside it are evidence against its claim to reality and that is something you can detect without knowing what is necessarily right or wrong in the first place.

[RolandCuthbert]

You keep saying words like "emulate" or "simulate". Again, emulate what? Simulate what? You have created an assumption to support your conclusion.

And what we think is coherent means nothing. Our point of reference, our concept of reality, can be shifting beneath our feet and we would never know.

At this moment, you think you are sitting still. Yet from other frames you appear to be moving 50,000 mph. In others you appear to be moving at twice that. And still others, you might be moving at faster than the speed of light.

There is no evidence to support a physical "real" universe over one existing in a disembodied mind.

[Soteris]

Oh but there is. A physical world is by definition finite while anything else that is very much optional. Everything has to be connected and leave absolutely no room over, that is proof of a "real" universe. It is by definition "perfect" and it should be impossible for a simulation to achieve the same level of perfection.

This is a fundamental problem of logic and not something we decided by observing the world. It is independent of this universe or the next.

[RolandCuthbert]

Finite? By definition? The physical universe may be spatially infinite. Or at least infinite to us. When we talk about a closed system, we don't mean one that is finite, we mean one where the sum total of all energy is zero. If the universe is truly a breaking symmetry, there may be an infinite amount of positive mass/energy because there is an infinite amount of negative mass/energy.

And again your logic is just full of assumptions that you can't make. Because you proceed from the framework of what you perceive.

Your perceptions mean nothing.

[Soteris]

No I dont mean it in such a limited sense. I mean finite as in everything must be accounted for, even infinite objects of forces. On the contrary, something that is not real has no such silly limitations or continuity problems.

[RolandCuthbert]

We do not account for all "forces" in the universe. We don't even understand the universe. We don't now if our observations about entropy make sense. We don't know if our questions about symmetry make sense. We don't have a workable quantum theory of gravity. We don't understand dark energy. . . dark matter or a thousand other things I can name.

Physicists are attempting to put together a theory of everything. But they are probably a few millennia away from their goal.

[Soteris]

We dont have to have accounted for everything personally, just have it be a possibility. This can be tested to a large degree simply by breaking down the "theory of everything" into its components which are much easier to test and confirm. Either way I dont think we are going to get anywhere at this point.

[RolandCuthbert]

But I don't you fully understood the paradox. As the creators tried to explain. . . again. . .

to look out at the universe, then create a theory solely based upon what you can observe is not scientific. You must be able to make predictions that can be verified.

To support their point, they created the Boltzmann brain. And some of the leading physicists started to rethink their claims and refine some of their theories. I illustrated two such examples. Science has to get back to making claims that can be verified.

[tlgannon]

The places that demonstrate order are locally open systems. They export their entropy. This is not a controversial or minority insight; you will hear it if you ask anyone with a reasonable understanding of thermodynamics. You should do that -- actively ask real experts instead of passively accepting the dictates of public personalities selling their brand. You can find such experts, in person and generally happy to talk, at your nearest community college.

The thing about how unlikely it is for the balance of physical forces required for life to occur randomly is a separate topic, and an utterly vacuous one. The statistical odds of something that has already observably happened are 1, no matter what they were beforehand.

[RolandCuthbert]

Locally open! Ah. . . a term I recognize. Okay. Yes, I can accept the possibility the open system is a local phenomenon in a universal closed system. The problem is there is no way to prove that. It makes equations work and resolves the questions of entropy. But we are claiming this problem is resolved in regions of the universe we can never contact.

If we accept these theories must be subjected to the scientific method, they must make predictions that can be tested.

[tlgannon]

We went from theory to practical application nearly 200 years ago. This is how refrigerators work.

[RolandCuthbert]

You are not addressing the issue. I can claim all the problems we have with symmetry are resolved in other universes. If that becomes "fact" without any experimentation, it is not science.

[monkeynutts]

I like the ideas, I actually build my whole understanding of life based on some of these physics principles, particularly the third law of thermodynamics, referring to the direction of the arrow of time. I often only ever relay these ideas to others when things are looking bad for them. I will have to get more acquainted with this type of science I guess it fits into the quantum mechanics category. Life is bizarre.

[RolandCuthbert]

Isn't that the truth? I am a Christian and I am telling you, whether you have faith or you are an atheist, the universe is crazy weird!!!

[monkeynutts]

Science can't disprove the existence of a creator, anyone who says they can is a crazy quack. I'm Christian too, I often refer to my text books as my bibles. There is also no scientific basis for atheism, I believe in the almighty in many ways, out of respect for my mother and father and my ancestors. The other reason is to feel apart of something bigger than me.

[RolandCuthbert]

I hear you.

[love_conquers_lust]

Quantum mechanics is the best encompassing explanation. No one knows explicitly why. It just is.

Biological life is an apparent violation of entropy. So are black holes. So is planet formation. Really, anything involving matter where it agglomerates via one of the fundamental forces. It actually doesn’t violate the second law because entropy increases of surroundings more than the decrease of the system. Even then, those agglomerations are still expanding into a vacuum all the time.

The essence of entropy is: a finite number things spreading out into infinite space.

The question is why, who, or what put us in that low entropy state to begin with.

[WalterRadio]

"One of the biggest issues in physics is the fact that the universe that we see all around us is at a low entropy state. "
That is neither an issue nor a fact.

The entropy of the universe today is higher than it was 13 billion years ago.

End of story.

[RolandCuthbert]

Sorry dude, I am tired. Been up all night working on a backup system.

Okay let me check my work.

Good.

An entropy always increases, right? In a closed system. We are at a low entropy state because there is enough order to form a star. There is enough order to form your body. There is enough order to form the Virgo Supercluster.

That is what is meant by low entropy. There is order when after almost 14 billion years, there should be absolute chaos in terms of disorder.

So no. It is not the end of "story". It is only the beginning of a really, really long and complex story that could take us millions of years, just to read the first time.

[WalterRadio]

Dude, I don't have the time nor the desire to teach you what I learned in my thermodynamics related classes (thermodynamics, statistical thermodynamics, space plasma physics, gasdynamics I, gasdynamics II, combustion, and turbulence), of which six of those are graduate level classes and the undergraduate class makes some very smart people cry.

The universe is expanding. That increases entropy. Stars give off photons and ions. That increases entropy. There has NEVER been any observed exception to the single direction of entropy in our universe.

In every case where someone claims to have done it, they leave something out. You are no exception.

[RolandCuthbert]

Yeah, you don't have time to teach. You just have time to stop by this thread and claim god-like knowledge that you don't have time to explain.

Unfortunately, that is not a very convincing argument. Come back when you think of something better.

[RolandCuthbert]

Wait, you did try to say something scientific. Okay stars radiate energy. Good.

Explain why stars, galaxies, clusters, superclusters, etc. are still forming?

Maybe what you are saying is that on large scales, the second law does not apply? But then science would have to explain why that would be.

[WalterRadio]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies everywhere in our universe. If you find a universe where time goes backward, then maybe we could have a different answer.

My physics classes were taught by gods, so if you say I have god-like knowledge of physics, I suppose you have a point.

[RolandCuthbert]

It applies everywhere in our universe? Oh, you mean the observed Universe. Yes, I would agree.

In the "unobserved" universe, or another universe that we would consider part of a multiverse, time may run backwards.

[WalterRadio]

"In the "unobserved" universe..."
Now, you are fantasizing.

[RolandCuthbert]

No, that isn't fantasizing. You do know that there are many physicists who believe, the universe is bigger than the observable universe, right?

Hmmm. . . this is interesting. You have not heard of cosmic inflation before.

[madhatters4]

i think it's all very possible but rather impossible to prove. i guess a question i have is let's suppose it is true what are the implications for our daily life? are there any?

these paradoxes are similar (in the concept that what we see is something of a pseudo reality) to the philosophies of Plato's cave

[RolandCuthbert]

Everybody keeps picking up the wrong end of the bat. Now I wish I had started off talking about Boltzmann.

Mad, Boltzmann was a brilliant physicists that worked in the field of statistical mechanics. Well, he calculated the probability of the observable universe having a low entropy at this stage of its evolution, based upon what we know of natural law. The probability of you walking into a given room and not being able to breathe because all of the oxygen molecules had decide to coalesce in one corner was greater.

Please do not get hung up in the Boltzmann paradox. It is not unlike schrodinger's cat. You understand that paradox, right? And you understand there is no way you can observe the cat moving to "superposition", right?

There is no test for that. No experiment.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh and do you mind supporting that young brother up top, Lex Benjamin? He is really brilliant. Just subscribe to his youtube channel.

www.lexbenjamin.com/the-lex-files?category=Science

[jacquesvol]

"that it is more probable that all of us are simply disembodied minds floating through an ether, with memories of these lives we lead, experiences we had, ____"
Sorry but I don't buy that. My existence is clearly VERY material.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, it could be.

:D

[jacquesvol]

If my existence wasn't material my employer wouldn't pay me and I wouldn't have fathered a son.

[RolandCuthbert]

Haha!

Did you ever watch the "Matrix"? You could be in a tub of goo, with thousands of tubes plugged into you, being fed crap. . . thinking you are having an English breakfast now.

:D

[RolandCuthbert]

Jacques, did you ever this scene from the Matrix. It is the best in the movie.

"I don't wanna remember nothing. Nothing!"

HAHA!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM

[jacquesvol]

I see: "nothing is real it's all an artificial illusion."

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, that was a popular American song in the 70s.

[dropkicknj13]

I generally avoid any hypothesis like this because while it is an interesting idea, it is useless to debate due to the nature of the hypothesis.

[RolandCuthbert]

What is wrong with the hypothesis? Boltzmann didn't posit it by the way. He only noted the extreme unlikelihood of such a low observed entropy after almost 14 billion years of supposed existence. He said, it would be like going into and exiting a room almost an infinite number of times. . . but in one exception upon entering, you could not breathe, because all of the oxygen molecules had decided to collect together in one small corner of the room.

Entropy is supposed to only increase. Yet somehow after 14 billion years, it is low enough for us to have a physical body. Those oxygen molecules are only supposed to increase in the amount of disorder.

[dropkicknj13]

The issue is just in the hypothesis that our reality is just a specific collection of particles arranged in a precise order to manufacture all of our memories or basically our reality in an instant without any of it actually happening.

The rest of it is not so much an issue to me because I do not think there is a specific rate at which entropy constantly occurs in the universe. So it may have taken a trillion years to reach this level of entropy, and perhaps this level will last 6 trillion years or only a million or etc. It is constantly increasing but the rate of increase is really all that matters

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, I understand. But physicists don't like simply looking around and fudging numbers for rates of entropy based upon what they see. I understand that. Because that is not practicing science. They need some law or natural process they can understand that causes it.

Otherwise, they become no better than me, right?

I think God did it all.

:D

[dropkicknj13]

Well I'm no better, I'm religious too.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh. . . pardon me.

Sorry. I didn't know.

[dropkicknj13]

It's okay, I take no offense 😆

[Chaz269]

I despise philosophical suggestions on scientific matters. To my knowledge, none have ever led to meaningful discoveries. Frankly, if all we're left with is "maybe this..." and "maybe that...", I've got better things to do with my otherwise meaningless existence.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, what about Boltzmann's original premise about the low entropy about the observed universe?

[Chaz269]

That's still a philosophical approach to reasoning. Since "low" is a respective term, you need a basis for comparison. There is none.

[RolandCuthbert]

It absolutely is not. If it were philosophical, half of the physics community would not worry about trying to resolve the issue in their equations.

Hawking called the inability to address it, one of the greatest blunders in physics. He said physics should be able to explain why the universe moves from a state of order to disorder and why the universe exists suitable for life with such a low value for entropy.

Again. . . he put forward his idea. "The no boundary proposal".

[Chaz269]

What's the basis for comparison then?

[tlgannon]

Just to be clear: your position also a philosophical one. Scientific method is itself a product of philosophy. Don't let the look-how-deep-I-am douchebags turn you off to the whole field. In particular, look up "epistemology." You may find something you like.

[RolandCuthbert]

I guess I am having trouble understanding why people don't realize, Boltzmann was a genius at calculating probabilities.

And he calculated an insanely low probability that the universe could have this amount of order at almost 14 billion years old. He didn't even invent the idea of Boltzmann brains. That paradox was submitted in a paper that took the "Many Worlds" theories to task. Many-Worlds is as untestable as Boltzmann's Brains. But it is a "real" theory. Boltzmann's Brains is not.

[Chaz269]

I disagree that the scientific method is a product of philosophy. It's a result of a need for standards to mitigate the influence of charlatans on scientific discovery and advancement. Arguably, it's also an elitist method of establishing a hierarchy within the scientific community, but that definitely is a philosophical argument. I don't mind philosophy for its own sake. I love science fiction films. I just don't much care for feelings and imaginations in science.

[Chaz269]

There is a great deal of dispute about the actual age of the universe, as well as the ability to calculate it without knowing with any certainty the position of our planet within it.

[Chaz269]

Also, genius is often compared to insanity because it's similarly difficult to understand the mind of a person who is afflicted with either. So, maybe your kind of genius or crazy just matches his. If you're looking for like-minded ilk, I think this is the wrong forum. There are physics blogs out there in which you're more likely to find what you're looking for. You won't get away from a debate though. Even prevailing theories are still often hotly debated by academia.

[tlgannon]

You "disagree?" Do you know what Ph. D. stands for?

[RolandCuthbert]

I think you got lost. There is no testable hypothesis. That was actually the point of the paper. You download it. It is online.

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405270

[Chaz269]

Certainly. Is that a challenge for you? Are you among those people who believe higher education means everything you think and say is entirely correct and accurate? Or do you have resources you can cite that exposes the entirely philosophical process that was used to develop the scientific method? I doubt it, but I'm open-minded. Enlighten me.

[RolandCuthbert]

Whoa. I mean well, there is dispute over the age of the universe. But I don't think we are talking about theories outside of the scientific community.

Or are we?

[RolandCuthbert]

@Chaz269 Which theories are hotly contested? Age of the universe? The universe starting from a state of the lowest disorder ever? Entropy should only increase in a closed system.

Which of these assumptions are hotly contested and by whom?

[Chaz269]

Well, literally every established theory is debated. To my knowledge, no theory is so widely accepted that testing and observations on the matter have ceased. Clearly you favor physics, while I am a fan of evolution.
We've been taught for decades that man evolved from apes, specifically great apes. I don't know about your experience, but I was taught that that point was indisputable. Curiously, since the theory hinged on "the missing link" a significant void in evidence.
www.BBC.com/.../20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes
The discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus and decades of testing suggest that modern man and great apes evolved simultaneously from a common ancestor, somewhat more like lesser apes. A previously all but completely dismissed theory written a century ago.

[Chaz269]

I've also started reading more on the cancer debates. There's a theory growing in popularity that cancer isn't an anomaly, but an eventuality. If that's true, we're decades removed from adequate treatments and possibly even cures simply because we've been asking the wrong questions all along.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, yes, I would tend to agree. There is always some testing. But there is also consensus in many areas. And if you get papers that are not peer-reviewed, well. . . I don't think they are worth pursuing.

[ZanyInternetName]

1) That's not actually the second law of thermodynamics but I'll let it slide for now.

2) Uhm … I take it you haven't studied physics. I'm the end of the first paragraph and you're going full Kent Hovind. Don't go full Hovind.

3) Uhm … Can you provide the maths, please? You'll need to show that an Ether exists and that disembodied minds exist. I haven't seen evidence for either, which pretty much sets the chance to null.

4) Ten to the power of infinity? I'd call you a troll if I didn't know that some retards actually believe this (Poe's Law is strong with this one).

5) So what if the chance of Man existing is small? The chance to get noir twenty-six times in a row is tiny but it does happen. As long as the chance is nonzero, …

6) After reading the second to last paragraph - yup, definitely troll. You got me, well done.

[RolandCuthbert]

You wasted a huge amount of time on a troll, don't you think?

:D

[ZanyInternetName]

I have nothing better to do :D

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh of that. . . I am quite certain.

LOLx10!!!

images.gr-assets.com/.../3633228.gif

[Anonymous]

Entropy only increases the way you think when there is not an abundance of energy capable of work in the system. Billions of years old or not, our universe has an abundance or workable energy in it, so Boltzmann brains are not a thing, a requirement, or a statisticial necessity. You're just wrong on this point.

[RolandCuthbert]

How am I wrong on this point? Do understand the paradox? Or is this yet another person claiming this is a theory?

[Anonymous]

Suppose an infinite universe and a constant creation of matter by supernovæ. Also suppose that there's no start or end to universe. Then there are constantly new levels of disorder and statistically life as we know it is infinitely probable.

[Opinion Owner]

I don't believe in ghost or soul, these are just tries of explanation of the past unknown.

[RolandCuthbert]

You mean like infinite inflation. Yeah, that's just "many-worlds". But I just wanted to introduce this paradox because of a number of issues.

1. Scientists/atheists agree that our ability to perceive the universe is significant. It is funny however that this assumption is basically the same as what religion has always assumed. That mankind is important.

2. From what we can observe, the universe is extraordinarily unique given that God did not create it and that natural processes account for its coming into being.

3. So since theories like "many-worlds" cannot be tested. And un-testable theories are not science, what can we deduce about the probability that we find ourselves in a universe with such a low entropy that we can possess a physical body?

That's basically where I am.

There may be a way to test your theory in the future. I just haven't seen a paper suggesting anything yet.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes an infinite inflation. We can still deduce the probability because of mathematics. We know age of earth and the age of life, so we can deduce that once in X time in X volume of space life can happen you got me?

[RolandCuthbert]

Yeah, I think I do. It is 2:30am here. And I am kind of tired. You are talking about looking at the observable universe and calculating probabilities for life at various stages correct?

[Opinion Owner]

No need to look at the universe, its just algebra.

[Opinion Owner]

After x time in y space there's 1 chance for life to happen, in the infinite context assumed, its all that matter.

[RolandCuthbert]

Right. I am not asleep yet. I thought that was what I typed. You didn't like the word "calculate".

You don't calculate algebra?

I didn't say anything about differential calculus.

[Opinion Owner]

Think about it more. If you can't see what i mean by such assumption then you don't try hard enough. With no constraint to progress of a process and a constant source of progress, there's no limit to the intensivity of the said process, I can't be more clear im out and there's no need to complexify this consequence with rigor.

[RolandCuthbert]

And there are no underlying assumptions like the specific charge of an electron? Or the speed of light?

Any universe with any kind of cosmology would produce life?

[SportsBrah]

Its all fake you are all just a figment of my imagination.

[RolandCuthbert]

You got it!

[Sheye24]

I have no idea

[RolandCuthbert]

And that may be the best response so far!

But seriously, the paradox is only meant to illustrate the rare occurrence for the birth of our universe, given what we know.

[Waffles731]

There is a science channel

[Waffles731]

Also, I doubt that we are, mostly because its just absolutely batshit

[RolandCuthbert]

Where? I didn't see one. The closest one was tech and internet.

[Waffles731]

Oh I thought you meant like on tv

[RolandCuthbert]

Haha! Now that was funny!

Thanks man. I am kind of down today. Stayed up all night. This sucks!

[Waffles731]

I know the feeling

[Waffles731]

There are tikes where I hadn't slept in over 60 hours