The Boltzmann Brain hypothesis is not accepted by physicists, as there are quite a lot of problems with it. It's just a thought experiment that people who have no idea what they're talking about like to recycle because it continues to get attention from a lay audience.
@OVAstronomy
2 ай бұрын
It cannot be rejected as of yet either. Its true that lots of physicists don't agree with the hypothesis (myself included), however it is still interesting to discuss and learn from - especially the background physics which leads up to it.
@glowfly
2 ай бұрын
Why would the physics imagined by the brain match the physics of the material universe in which the brain exists? The conclusion undermines the reasoning
@cykkm
2 ай бұрын
Why, it doesn't have to at all.
@Kinoko314
Ай бұрын
I'm not at all convinced, but I guess it's an interesting thought experiment.
@justinb2630
Ай бұрын
If we are all truly living in a Boltzman Brain, there wouldn't be an individual thought that I would have that you wouldn't know. 😉
@Guttwistah
2 ай бұрын
7:03 Aeons? Like in CCC of Penrose 🤔
@Guttwistah
2 ай бұрын
Btw what do you think about it? I am not scientist and find it very interesting and logical
@KaiseruSoze
2 ай бұрын
How can existence be?
@thomasayresol
2 ай бұрын
Great question 🤔
@Vottotoiono
2 ай бұрын
1. Existence and non-existence can not be parts of each other (due to it has no sense in it and deprive their definitions and sense in everything else, if you think, 'cause everything is always affected by core concepts like being and not being, lol) 2. Existence and non-existence must have opposite properties (otherwise we just violate definitions again, instead of solving problem) 3. If the very essence of existence is - _to exist_ then _the very essence of non-existence is - to not exist._
@cykkm
2 ай бұрын
It can't. It's only _you_ who exists. I'm only a figment of your imagination, along with the Universe, YT and the film about the Boltzmann brain.
@paulsaulpaul
2 ай бұрын
All these paradoxes in physics can be solved by assuming an omnipotent intelligent being (or force) that exists outside of the universe. It would exist in a space that is like a superspace the universe (and time as we perceive it) exists in. I could spend a few thousand words elaborating, but there is little point given the reception this idea normally gets among the physics crowd. Regarding entropy, Tom Stonier's paper(s) on the information universe theory (information as a fundamental property of the universe) are interesting. It considers the assembly of information to be a negative entropy operation. Which would be the basis for the "self-emergence" of life. This goes well with the unrelated paper titled, "Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution". Tom Stonier couldn't reconcile his theory with the second law of thermodynamics. Regarding conservation of entropy. I think that the reduction of entropy as the universe orders (forms life, etc.) is conserved at the "edge" of the universe where entropy is the highest as it expands. That is, the expansion of the universe is to conserve the negentropy (life, etc.) created within the universe. But that is so simple, I'm surprised Stonier didn't consider that. Since I'm just layperson, I'm probably in error about my understanding of the expansion of the universe. As far as "spontaneous self-emergence (of life)," that omnipotent intelligent force that exists outside of our observable universe affects all particle interactions in intelligent ways. While those seem to integrate to randomness bound probabilistically by a quantum wave function to us, they're actually being precisely controlled. That is, there are no coincidences. There is no randomness when the universe is considered as a whole (viewed from outside). Einstein may have been more correct than he realized in that famous quote where he expressed his opinion of quantum mechanics.
@MOSMASTERING
2 ай бұрын
That's not an answer. It's not testable, its an invention of imagination. "answer = God" to all unsolved problems is not a solution to anything.. especially since the track record of this answer being correct is continually diminished as time goes on.. We call your 'answer' the £God of the gaps" argument. And over decades of research, wherever that answer was used, it has slowly been replaced by the real answer. I'm not surprised you don't like the response you - because it contradicts your viewpoint. It''t not science. In science we require testability, repeatability and peer review. We are still coming to terms with the idea of emergent properties from much simpler rules. This is brand new and has exciting implications. kzitem.info/news/bejne/rZV_vYqQiZ-UYHo Where we see perceived order, intelligent design or complexity - that is always the result of far simpler processes going on. You see it EVERYWHERE... One great example is just the patterns in plants.. spirals, leaf numbers being fibonacci numbers etc. It's because its so easy to genetically program a simple rule that leads to optimal outcomes.. light absorption from tree canopies.
@infinitygame18
Ай бұрын
Are you aware that, NINETEEN IS NOTHING OR NINETEEN IS EVERYTHING, FROM WHERE DO THIS NINETEEN CAME FROM IN MATHEMATICS Just like space and time your maths is also doomed, I answer
Пікірлер: 16