Can random, unguided processes produce a rational brain?

[Drakkith]

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain as to the ratio of Boltzmann brains to normal brains according to different cosmological scenarios.

That doesn't appear to support your claim that Boltzmann brains are easier to create than real brains. The fact that all of the scenarios require absurdly long time frames on average means the exact opposite in my opinion. Boltzmann brains appear to be monumentally more difficult to create (assuming you mean that less probable outcomes are more 'difficult').

How can this be a valid argument nowadays, with QM existing? The universal wavefunction contains some (amplitude for) Boltzmann brains absolutely certainly.

I'm not arguing that a Boltzmann brain does or doesn't exist, I'm only saying that the formation of each one is an exceedingly improbable event.

More, it's experimentally proved that the Born rule is biased when a conscious interest is involved.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by this. What is the Born rule?

 

[Klystron]

The accumulation of supposed 'Einstein quotes' in furtherance of the incomprehensible reminds one of the numerous pieces of the 'true cross' that if collected would "cover 100 Calvarys in forests of trees"*. I am satisfied with reading and understanding translations of Einstein's science papers.

[*paraphrasing a quote attributed to some anti-simony Reformation philosopher, possibly Martin Luther?]

 

[stefanbanev]

That doesn't appear to support your claim that Boltzmann brains are easier to create than real brains. The fact that all of the scenarios require absurdly long time frames on average means the exact opposite in my opinion. Boltzmann brains appear to be monumentally more difficult to create (assuming you mean that less probable outcomes are more 'difficult').

I'm not arguing that a Boltzmann brain does or doesn't exist, I'm only saying that the formation of each one is an exceedingly improbable event.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by this. What is the Born rule?

>"absurdly long time frames"

May you tell how long you sleep once all watches sleep with you?

>"exceedingly improbable event."

If it is not an exact zero then it is doomed to be in huge quantity. From point view of Boltzmann brain the time/space (or any other metrics) distances between its snapshots are totally irrelevant, as soon as snapshots are not identical and not too different then some its sequences/orders may manifest what you perceive as your existence. My apology for explaining such trivialities...

 

[Drakkith]

>"absurdly long time frames"

May you tell how long you sleep once all watches sleep with you?

>"exceedingly improbable event."

If it is not an exact zero then it is doomed to be in huge quantity. From point view of Boltzmann brain the time/space (or any other metrics) distances between its snapshots are totally irrelevant, as soon as snapshots are not identical and not too different then some its sequences/orders may manifest what you perceive as your existence. My apology for explaining such trivialities...

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're getting at. This thread started as a topic on something related to evolution, which I at least know the basics of, and has evolved into a discussion on Boltzmann brains, which I know very little about. Which has undoubtedly shown in my posts. Perhaps it's best if I bow out of the discussion here.

 

[Motore]

Here is a good layman explanation of a Boltzman brain:

 

[DaveC426913]

Here is a good layman explanation of a Boltzman brain:

Thanks. That explanation was Shiny!*
I knew what Boltzman Brains were, but didn't understand the significance until he walked through it.

If the Big Bang and the resultant universe is a consequence of a vastly unlikely decrease in entropy, then much smaller, simpler unlikelihoods should be vastly more common (A thousand monkeys should churn out vastly more Shakespearean sonnets than plays).

So, for every entire universe created, there should be a vast number of far, far simpler things - such as human brains - created by chance.

*obligatory Firefly reference

 

[stefanbanev]

... there should be a vast number of far, far simpler things - such as human brains - created by chance.

It's correct; furthermore, every subset/assembly of B-Brains (BB) which are nearly ~identical may be considered as a superposition of Everett observer; it's clear that any distances (in any time/space metrics) between such BB are totally irrelevant to have such assembly. Apparently, there is no need for Universe as such since Universe is defined by BB-state of such observer. It's also clear that the overwhelming majority of BB are insane and it is irrelevant how low likelihood of sane BB is, it just should not be a total zero to have them in huge quantity... (another reincarnation of natural selection where selecting factor is literally an existence itself ;o)