Boltzmann brains and other low probability events

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
35 replies · 6K views
durant35 said:
but because of their random wavefunctions.

Random wave-functions?

I like to think I know QM pretty well to the level of Ballentine, but I think that one needs further elaboration.

Please no links to papers - it should be explainable without that.

Thanks
Bill
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bhobba said:
Random wave-functions?

I like to think I know QM pretty well but I think that one needs further elaboration.

Please no links to papers - it should be explainable without that.

Thanks
Bill

My bad, error in writing. I didn't really mean that wavefunctions are random.
 
durant35 said:
Now my question is: do those fluctuations include both classical thermal fluctuations (the one which Boltzmann originally had in mind) and also quantum fluctuations (where unlikely things occur because of the randomness of the particle-wavefunctions).
durant35 said:
My bad, error in writing. I didn't really mean that wavefunctions are random.

Sean is a very serious scientist - his GR textbook is VERY good.

But I must say I find some of his QM writings on the obscure side with this thread an example. A lot of stuff like randomness of the particle-wavefunctions leave me scratching my head exactly what is meant. Wavefunctions change either by Schrödinger's equation or some kind of preparatiom procedure - at least that's the modern view found in texts like Ballentine. Does he mean the result of preparation procedures is random?

Thanks
Bill
 
durant35 said:
What's your opinion on BBs in general?
If you are Boltzmann brains then all your knowledge about science is fiction including unjustified extrapolations that lead to speculation about Boltzmann brains. Idea sort of defeats itself.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: stoomart
My view is that it'll never happen even if it's theoretically possible. A common complaint among fundamentalists who don't understand evolution is that the odds of atoms randomly creating a mind as complex as us is ridiculously unlikely. I agree. Without an iterative, self-propelling process like Darwinian evolution, objects will remain simple. Even if a thought formed randomly, why would it not dissipate instantly? It has to be self-containing in order to have a stream of consciousness.
 
newjerseyrunner said:
My view is that it'll never happen even if it's theoretically possible. A common complaint among fundamentalists who don't understand evolution is that the odds of atoms randomly creating a mind as complex as us is ridiculously unlikely. I agree. Without an iterative, self-propelling process like Darwinian evolution, objects will remain simple. Even if a thought formed randomly, why would it not dissipate instantly? It has to be self-containing in order to have a stream of consciousness.

I agree with you.

Would you agree that we need a better understanding of evolution, entropy and their relationship in order to have a legitimate discussion about something that sounds very drastic and extraordinary like a BB?